Forced Entry Lock with Opposing Engagement Elements
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current forced entry resistant locks are not effective against burglary attempts using screwdrivers or crowbars, as they can be easily extracted from their mounting due to single-sided anchoring and visible threaded elements, failing to meet the RC3 resistance standard.
Innovation Solution
A forced entry resistant lock design featuring two engagement elements with opposing orientations, a movable pivot, and an internal fixing plate, which are arranged to resist extraction by providing enhanced engagement and secure anchoring within the door or window assembly, preventing removal by screwdrivers or crowbars.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Device complexity
If single hook and tumbler systems are used, then the lock structure is simple, but the forced entry resistance is insufficient and can be easily extracted with burglary tools
Solution Approach 1:
The lock system is divided into multiple independent engagement elements (at least two) that are arranged at different locations and orientations within the casing. Each engagement element can engage with corresponding coupling seats in the frame, creating multiple anchoring points that must all be compromised for the lock to fail, thereby significantly increasing forced entry resistance while maintaining reasonable structural complexity.
2Ease of manufacture
If threaded elements are used to fix the lock to the leaf, then the installation is straightforward, but the visible screw heads provide leverage points for burglars to tear the lock out
Solution Approach 1:
The engagement elements are nested within the casing structure, with at least one engagement element positioned inside the casing and engaging with coupling seats from the interior. This nesting conceals the anchoring mechanism within the lock body itself, eliminating exposed screw heads that could be used as leverage points, while the internal engagement provides robust anchoring resistant to extraction forces.
3Reliability
If engagement elements are arranged with opposing orientations, then the resistance to extraction is enhanced, but the device complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The engagement elements are configured with asymmetric orientations relative to each other and to the casing, with at least one engagement element having a different orientation than others. This asymmetric arrangement creates multiple engagement vectors that resist extraction forces from various directions, making it extremely difficult for burglary tools to apply effective leverage, while the complexity increase remains manageable through standardized component design.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2~3
Figure 4~5
AI summary
A forced entry resistant lock (10), comprising - a casing (15) with a passage opening (16) for two engagement elements (17, 18), - two engagement elements (17, 18) arranged with respective engagement teeth (19, 20) that have opposite orientations in the configuration for use with the lock in operation, - a movable pivot (21), to which both of the engagement elements (17, 18) are pivoted, - means (23) for the translation of the movable pivot (21) in a direction for the exit of the engagement elements (17, 18) from inside the casing (15), in an inactive configuration, toward the outside of the casing, in an intermediate configuration for translation and in a subsequent configuration for use, - means (24) for the rotation in opposite directions of each engagement element (17, 18) from an intermediate configuration for translation to a configuration for use, and - elastic means (25) for contrasting the rotation of the engagement elements (17, 18) from the intermediate configuration to the configuration for use.