Hold Force For Sliding Door

Options for Mechanical
Hold Force for Sliding Doors

Title on 1 row
Mikaela Albertsson and Jens Thieme Almkvist
DIVISION OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT | DEPARTMENT OF DESIGN SCIENCES
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING LTH | LUND UNIVERSITY
2019
MASTER THESIS
1
Options for Mechanical Hold Force for
Sliding Doors
2
Options for Mechanical Hold Force for Sliding Doors
Copyright © 2019 Mikaela Albertsson and Jens Thieme Almkvist
Published by
Department of Design Sciences
Faculty of Engineering LTH, Lund University
P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden
Subject: Product Development (MMKM05)

Division: Division of Product Development, Department of Design Sciences, Faculty of
Engineering LTH, Lund University
Supervisor: Per-Erik Andersson
Examiner: Giorgos Nikoleris
3
Abstract
ASSA ABLOY’s automatic sliding doors today have a constant hold force applied when-
ever the doors are closed. The force is adjustable between 0-60 N and is generated by a
motor. In this project it has been investigated whether it is possible to install a mechanical
alternative to this hold force instead. The project was initiated by ASSA ABLOY, who
also has been providing the data and information needed in order to work with the project.
After investigating many different options, a solution was decided upon which uses mag-
nets and springs. A prototype of this solution has been made as a proof of concept. This
solution is seen as possible to use in future doors and also gives the opportunity to integrate
with a night lock. There is some doubts regarding if this solution should be recommended
to all users of ASSA ABLOY’s doors. An argument is presented that doors which are
opened with a high frequency are better left with the motor as a hold force generator since
a mechanical solution will only interfere and make a quick turn in the opening and closing
sequence slower.
All solutions presented are in need of more development, though a proof of concept has
been made for the suggested solution. There is a need for an economical analysis and a
material analysis in order to get on further with the project. Also more research needs to
be done in finding the right magnets and springs, both in size and in force.
Keywords: Sliding doors, Mechanical force, Product development, Ulrich & Eppinger,
Prototyping.
4
Sammanfattning
ASSA ABLOYs automatiska skjutdörrar som de erbjuder i dagens läge använder en kon-
stant hållkraft när de är stängda för att hålla dem stängda. Kraften är justerbar mellan
0-60 N och genereras av motorn. Detta projektet har undersökt ifall det finns en mekanisk
lösning som kan installeras och användas istället för den hållkraften som används idag.
Projektet initierades av ASSA ABLOY och de har bidragit med all nödvändig data samt
information som har behövts längs arbetets gång.
Efter att ha utvärderat många olika alternativ valdes ett koncept som använder sig av mag-
neter och fjädrar för att generera den mekaniska hållkraften. Det har gjorts en prototyp på
detta koncept för att bevisa att det fungerar som önskat. Denna lösningen är främst tänkt
till nya dörrar men kan möjligen designas om så att det passar i dörrar som redan finns ute
på marknaden samt att man designar den så att man kan installera ett nattlås. Det finns
vissa tvivel om ifall ovanstående lösning ska rekommenderas till samtliga användare av
ASSA ABLOYs dörrar. Det har diskuterats ifall dörrar som öppnas och stängs mycket
inte drar nytta utav att installera en mekanisk lösning likt denna då det kan komma att
störa öppningssekvensen, speciellt om dörren gör en vändning mitt i en stängning.
Alla lösningar som har presenterats måste vidareutvecklas innan de kan användas. Dock
har det önskvärda verkningssättet bevisats med hjälp av en prototyp. Det måste göras
ekonomiska analyser samt analyser på materialval för att kunna ta projektet vidare. Det
måste även göras vidare undersökningar på magneter och fjädrar för att finna bäst lämpade.
Nyckelord: Skjutdörrar, Mekansik hållkraft, Produktutveckling, Ulrich & Eppinger, Pro-
totypframtagning.
5
Preface
This thesis has been done in cooperation with ASSA ABLOY Entrance System (AAES)
in Landskrona, Sweden. The project was done on request from ASSA ABLOY and any
future work with the project will be led by AAES.
We would like to thank Roger Dreyer for giving us the opportunity to do this master thesis
at ASSA ABLOY and for the support, knowledge and feedback along the way.
We would also like to thank our supervisor at LTH, Per-Erik Andersson, for the support
and discussion throughout the project.
Lund, January 2019

6
Table of contents
1 Introduction 10
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2 Problem description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3 Focus of this project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 Delimitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Theory 12
2.1 Sliding door definition and working principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 Short on calculating DC motor power consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 Method 18
3.1 Ulrich and Eppinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4 Specifications 20
4.1 Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.1 Specifications from ASSA ABLOY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.2 Tests and measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.3 Legal requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2 Analysis of collected data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.3 Target specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3.1 Benchmarking - information about the competition . . . . . . . . 26
4.3.2 Ideal and marginally acceptable target values . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5 Concept phase 28
5.1 Generating concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.1.1 Similar solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.1.2 External research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1.3 Brainstorming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2 Choice of concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.2.1 Concept screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7
5.2.2 First development of concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.2.3 Concept selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2.4 Second development of concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.2.5 Final concept selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6 Prototyping 49
6.1 Proof of concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.1.1 Concept number 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.1.2 Concept number 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.1.3 Concept number 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.1.4 Discussion and continued development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.2 Developing concept no. 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.2.1 Stage 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.2.2 Stage 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.2.3 Stage 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.2.4 Stage 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.2.5 Stage 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.2.6 Stage 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.2.7 Stage 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.3 Function of concept no. 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
7 Discussion 70
7.1 Suggested solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
7.2 Comparison with target specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
7.3 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
8 Conclusion 74
8.1 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
References 75
Appendix A Measurement data 76
Appendix B Concept art 79

B.1 First concept sketches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
B.2 Sketches for first concept development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
B.3 Sketches for second concept development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
8
Appendix C Planning and workload 102
C.1 Time schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
C.2 Distribution of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
9
1 Introduction
This chapter will present the problem and the company that has been collaborated with.
It will also present the focus and delimitation’s of this project.
1.1 Background
Sliding doors made by ASSA ABLOY are currently using motor power to keep their doors
closed. This power can be configured upon installation. The power is applied when the
door is closed, up until it opens again. This is seen as an unnecessary use of power, both
from an economical and environmental perspective.
ASSA ABLOY is a company that develops and manufactures door opening solutions and
services. Their biggest markets are in Europe, North America, South America, China and
Oceania. The doors made by ASSA ABLOY can be found in both private homes as well
as in commercial and public buildings such as hospitals, hotels, warehouses etc. The door
opening solutions ranges from automatic sliding and swing doors to garage and hangar
doors.
The study and tests for this report has been made with the help and cooperation of ASSA
ABLOY Entrance System a part of ASSA ABLOY AB.
1.2 Problem description
Sliding door operators made by ASSA ABLOY today are using a hold force when the
doors are in a closed mode. This is done to secure that the doors are kept closed, minimize
the leakage of warm/cold air through the doors and also for an aesthetically appealing look
(so that there is no visible gap between the doors).
The force applied is a constant force between 0-60 N and is configured at installation.
Because of this, current is always running through the windings and the motor consumes
power. This power generates heat, in some cases it generates enough heat to require a
larger motor to be able to handle the heat.
The primary gain to come out of solving this power wasting problem would be energy
efficiency. It would reduce the amount of power consumed by ASSA ABLOY sliding
doors, making them both cheaper and more environment friendly. Another possible gain
is the possibility to downsize some motors, using less costly resources like copper.
10
1.3 Focus of this project
The aim of this project is to examine the scope of the hold force problem in sliding doors
and develop a more energy efficient way to apply the hold force. At least one concept
should be realised into a prototype.
1.4 Delimitation
To be able to complete this project during the time given certain limitations had to be
made. A decision was made to first and foremost look at the European market (excluding
the French market, which has some special requirements). If there is time in the end sug-
gestions will be made on how our solution can be implemented into those products and
markets as well.
11
2 Theory
In this chapter the theory used in this project will be presented along with an explanation
of how a sliding door works.
2.1 Sliding door definition and working principle
A principle sketch of a sliding door operator is shown in Figure 2.2 from the front and
Figure 2.3 shows it from the side. The rail is mounted on the wall and all other components
are then mounted on the rail. The door holders are wheeled and can roll horizontally in
tracks on the rail. In a complete door system, the door leaves are suspended by the door
holders.
Figure 2.1: Picture of an automatic sliding door from ASSA ABLOY.
12
Figure 2.2: Front view of a simplified version of a sliding door operator.
Figure 2.3: Side view of a simplified version of a sliding door operator. The wheel is a part of the door
holder.
The door holders are connected to a timing belt. The holders are connected so that if the
belt moves, the holders move in opposite directions of each other.
The timing belt is strapped around an electric motor and a pulley wheel. These are mounted
on the vertical side of the rail. The motor is equipped with a right angle gearbox and a
cogwheel. The motor acts upon the timing belt in order to move the holders and thus open
and close the door.
Other components, such as electrical components and locks, are mounted on the vertical
part of the rail in between the motor and the pulley wheel.
The behaviour of the door can be described using a state machine. The state machine is
shown in Figure 2.4. The door is at a given time in one of four states. The states are
summarized in Table 2.1.
13
Figure 2.4: The state machine that describes the behaviour of a sliding door.
Table 2.1: The states in the state machine.
State Action
S1 Closed
S2 Opening
S3 Open
S4 Closing
Figure 2.5 shows a full opening and closing sequence where each state is associated with
a movement or position of the doors as described here.
Starting in state S1, the door is closed and the motor is applying a constant force to the
door holder to keep the door in closed position. When the signal open is received, the state
is changed to S2 and the motor applies a force that moves the holders outwards. When the
holders are in open position, signal in pos open is received and S3 is entered. The door
is now open and stays open. When signal close is received, the motor applies force that
moves the holder inwards. When signal in pos closed is received, state S1 is entered. The
signal open could also be received in state S4, and that will trigger the state machine to
enter state S2.
14
Figure 2.5: Sequence illustrating a full motion cycle of a sliding door from closed (S1) to open (S3) to
closed (S1). The arrows show the direction of the force applied. Note that the arrows in S1 depicts the
hold force.
15
2.2 Short on calculating DC motor power consumption
As the goal of this project is to decrease sliding door motors’ energy consumption, methods
of analysing the energy usage of electric motors are needed. The formulas explained below
are considered to be elementary formulas of electrical science and common knowledge,
with exception to the self derived formulas based on the elementary formulas. These for-
mulas will be used later on when calculating the standby power consumption of the door’s
electric motors.
Electrical power is defined as in Equation 2.2, where U is voltage and I is the current.
This can be combined together with Ohms law (Equation 2.1) to get Equation 2.3. If a
DC motors internal resistance R is known, the power P generated by the motor can be
calculated with the current as sole variable.
U =R·I (2.1)
P =I ·U (2.2)
P = I · (I · R) = I 2 · R (2.3)
The torque developed by a DC motor can be considered proportional to the current in the
windings. This relationship results in a motor constant called the torque constant, Kt . It
is defined as in Equation 2.4.
Mt
Kt = (2.4)
I
where Mt is the torque developed by the motor.

The DC motors used as drive units for sliding doors comes with an integrated 90◦ gearbox.
This gearbox has a reduction ratio, which describes the relationship in rotational speeds
between input and output. The torque from the motor shaft is translated into a torque that
acts on the cogwheel. This torque will act on the belt as a force. The force applied from
the cogwheel on the belt can be described as
Mt
F = · u · µ, (2.5)
r
where u is the gearbox reduction and µ is the gearbox efficiency. r is the radius of the
cogwheel. This is the definition of moment, M = F · r, with the gearbox reduction and
efficiency factor added to account for losses in the gearbox.
16
Combining Equation 2.4 with Equation 2.5 and solving for I results in
F ·r
I= . (2.6)
Kt · u · µ
Finally, with an expression for I with F as sole variable, an expression for the power gen-
erated depending on the force applied is found by inserting Equation 2.6 into Equation 2.3.
( )2
F ·r
P = ·R (2.7)
Kt · u · µ
17
3 Method
In this chapter the method of Ulrich and Eppinger that has been used will be presented.
3.1 Ulrich and Eppinger
The development process for this project has been inspired by the product and design
methodology developed by Ulrich and Eppinger (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2014). Certain de-
viations from the methodology has been made where suitable.
Figure 3.1: The generic product development process (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2014, p.45) (translated).
Figure 3.1 shows the generic product development process. Since this project is done
on request by ASSA ABLOY, it is assumed that they have performed the planning stage
beforehand.
The focus will be within concept development. Figure 3.2 shows a more detailed mapping
of the concept development stages.
This project will start with setting target specifications and follow the general steps of the
concept development stages. The idea is to go through at least 3 iterations of prototypes
during this project and deliver a working prototype.
The step of identifying customer needs (see Figure 3.2) will not be done since ASSA
ABLOY has provided most of the desired target specifications. Prototypes and bench-
marking will be done along the way to improve the product.
18
Figure 3.2: The different activities in the concept development phase of the product development pro-
cess (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2014, p.48). (translated)
19
4 Specifications
This chapter will present the target specification that was formulated with regards to the
specifications given from the company, tests and measurements made and legal require-
ments.
4.1 Data collection
4.1.1 Specifications from ASSA ABLOY
ASSA ABLOY has provided specifications that a sliding door with a hold force device
has to comply with. They are listed in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: ASSA ABLOY requirements for a sliding door with a hold force device.
Metric Unit Min.value Max.value

◦
Working temperature C -20 65
Hold force (configurable) N 0 60
Distance while in action mm 0 20
Lifetime cycles 106 N/A
Time to open s 0 3
Max force to open N N/A 200
The difference between hold force and max force to open is that hold force regards the
force to keep the door closed. Max force to open regards the maximum required force to
open the door in any given situation.
ASSA ABLOY utilises electric DC motors as drive units in their sliding doors. Techni-
cal specifications for these motors were provided by ASSA ABLOY. They are using two
different motors. There is one large motor and one small motor. The choice of which
motor to use depends mostly on the weight of the door leaves and friction force. The small
motor has a maximum static hold force of 36 N, anything higher than that will cause it to
overheat in time. The large motor can apply a static hold force of 71 N. This limitation of
the smaller motor sometimes results in that the large motor is used instead, just to handle
the hold force, even though the door leaves are light enough for the smaller motor to move
them.
20
In many cases, the doors are not turned off and are applying a hold force during the whole
day, including when the door is locked and the entrance is closed.
Technical sketches of doors have been made available by ASSA ABLOY for this project,
although they are not shown in this report due to confidentiality.
4.1.2 Tests and measurements
To get more of an accurate understanding of how the hold force works and affects the
operator a series of tests were conducted.
The first test conducted was a pull test. This was done to examine how much force is
required to open a sliding door with different hold force settings. The test was conducted
on a SL500 telescopic sliding door using a load cell.
The load cell was mounted on to the door leaf with a string in one end. See Figure 4.1 for
the setup. With the motors turned off the string was pulled until the door was opened. The
required force was measured and recorded. This was repeated with different settings for
the hold force. The test results can be seen in Table 4.2.
Figure 4.1: Picture showing how the loading cell was mounted to the door. When the doors where
opened by pulling in them the white rope was stretched out and the loading cell was subjected to a force.
21
Table 4.2: Pull force measurements data from testing.
Hold force setting[ N] Measured data [ N]
No Power 58
0 60
4 67
10 78
20 97
30 118
40 142
50 178
60 227
The second test was done on the same door with the same tools. In this test the push force
for different hold force settings was measured. The load cell was mounted on the edge of
one door leaf, Figure 4.2 displays the setup. The door was configured to behave as if it was
fully closed when contact between the load cell and the other door lead was made. The
test was done three times and a mean value was then calculated. The results are shown in
Table 4.3. The complete data for all tests can be found in Table A.1 in Appendix A. One
other thing discovered during this test, was that right before the door is closed completely
a close kick is performed, i.e. a strong force is applied (up to 150 N) for a short duration
of time. This is done in order to ensure that the seals are closed.
Figure 4.2: Picture showing how the loading cell was mounted to the door.
22
Table 4.3: Mean value for push force measurements data from testing.
Hold force setting[ N] Mean Value [ N]
0 2,27
5 3,43
10 5,36
20 12,77
30 17,20
40 26,07
50 30,83
60 37,80
A field trip was done to the center of Lund. This to observe ASSA ABLOY doors in a real
world application. The observations made where number of people entering and exiting
the stores during a fixed amount of time. Also the duration the doors were closed between
openings and closings was observed. The doors studied were the entrance doors to ICA
Malmborgs and H&M. The study was made during 15 min and once on each door. The
study was made during lunch time 11:05-11:45. Compiled data from the study is shown in
Table A.3, all the data collected can be found in Table A.2 in Appendix A. This data was
later used to calculate values for the energy loss in kWh that could be used when stating
the target specifications. The observation was only done once since these values do not
need to be exact, the main purpose of the values is to get an idea about the which range
the energy loss is within.
4.1.3 Legal requirements
Automatic doors and entrances has to fulfill certain legal requirements to be allowed to
be sold. These vary between regions but a European and American standard exist. The
European standard is valid as a Swedish standard and the American standard is valid in
most of the states. The Swedish standard (which is the same as the European standard)
states that a door with a break-out function should not require a force larger than 220 N to
activate the function (Swedish-Standards-Institute, 2012, p.24).
It also states that doorsets with a width larger than 2000 mm shall open at least 80% within
3 seconds of activation of the activator or at latest 5 seconds after the power supply goes
off. A power operated sliding door should also withstand a durability test of 1 000 000
cycles(Swedish-Standards-Institute, 2012, p.24).
A static closing force of up to 150 N is allowed during the last 50 mm for any type of
sliding door (Swedish-Standards-Institute, 2012, p.18).
The American standard states that a stopped door should not require more than 133 N to
prevent it from closing at any point in the closing cycle (Builders-Hardware-Manufacturers-
Association, 2015).
These legal requirements will be needed to be taken into account when establishing target
specifications.
23
4.2 Analysis of collected data
Using motor data and (2.7), the power loss for each motor at different hold force settings
was calculated. Table 4.4 shows the result. The power loss for the small motor at hold
force settings above 30 N was not included since the small motor’s maximum hold force
is 36 N.
Table 4.4: Calculate power loss for different motors and hold force setting. Power loss is in W.
Motor HF = 10 N HF = 20 N HF = 30 N HF = 40 N HF = 50 N HF = 60 N
Small 0,590 2,362 5,313

Large 0,246 0,986 2,218 3,943 6,161 8,872
The minimum lifetime of a door, before a critical failure, is assumed to be at least 1 million
cycles. To calculate the estimated time until a door has performed 1 million cycles the
following equation can be used
1000000
tlif e = (4.1)
4 · cycles · hday · 365
where cycles is the number of observed cycles during 15 minutes and hday is the average
store open hours per day.
Using (4.1) with data from Table A.2 and Table A.3 the estimated lifetime was calculated
to be 1 year for the operator at ICA Malmborgs and 3 years for the operator at H&M.
Due to the heavy traffic through the doors at ICA Malmborgs, the number of cycles was
assumed to be double of the measured data in Table A.2. This because there were several
cases where the door did not have time to properly close before it was opened again. The
cycles during 15 minutes for ICA was 21·2 = 42 cycles and for for H&M it was 29 cycles.
To estimate the energy used to apply hold force using the motors (4.2) was derived. mclosed
is the minutes of door closed time from Table A.2.
mclosed
E = P · (4 · · hday + hnight ) · dlif etime (4.2)
60
Energy from power is given by E = P · t. With power estimates from Table 4.4, the
energy used can be calculated with the lifetimes for each door. The formula also takes the
night hours into account, since the hold is applied during the night as well. The results are
shown Table 4.5.
Data given by ASSA ABLOY show that the small motor can be assigned a hold force of
36 N without overheating, see 4.1.1. Therefore there is no data above 3 N in hold force in
Table 4.5.
24
Table 4.5: Calculated energy loss in kWh for a sliding door at two locations, for estimated lifetimes at
each location.
Location Motor Timespan HF=10 HF=20 HF=30 HF=40 HF=50 HF=60

N N N N N N
ICA Small 1 years 2,322 9,286 20,894

Large 0,969 3,876 8,722 15,506 24,228 34,888
H&M Small 3 years 11,126 44,504 100,133
Large 4,644 18,577 41,798 74,308 116,107 167,194
4.3 Target specifications
In Table 4.6 the collected data have been compiled into measurable units, metrics. The
different metrics have been given an importance. Discussion with the ASSA ABLOY
supervisor and within the development team formed the basis for the importance scores
given to specifications.
The metrics that have some kind of legal requirement linked to them was assigned highest
importance, since not fulfilling these would make the product illegal to use. The legal
requirement of being able to open the door manually by a force no larger than 220 N is
considered to be covered in metric number 1 together with hold force applied.
Metric number 1 and 2 was assigned highest importance since they are key metrics for the
product to function as desired. Metric number 8 was assigned highest importance as well.
This because, if the product requires more energy to produce than it consumes during its
lifetime, there is no overall reduction in energy usage, which is the largest motivation for
doing this project.
Metric number 3 was assigned an importance of 4. To fit the device inside the hood is
highly desirable but if the best solution is placed outside of the hood, it could be acceptable
and maybe prompt a redesign of the hood.
It was reflected that if cost of usage for the new solution makes up for a high production
cost (in comparison to the already existing product), this high production cost would be
seen as acceptable and therefore metric number 5 is assigned importance 3.
Metric 6 is assigned importance 3 since the possibility of being able to put a hold force on
installed doors today is very intriguing and should be investigated, it is not crucial for the
product’s success.
Metric number 9 is important for the product, especially the lower bound. Despite being
very important, working temperature for a mechanical device is considered to be a material
choice mainly, which is of higher concern later in the development process. Therefore this
metric is assigned an importance of 3, for the moment.
Metric number 10 is given an importance of 2, since decreasing the motor power loss
in order to downsize the motor is a secondary objective. Metric number 11 is given an
importance of 2, since a one directional force is to prefer, it is in no way imperative for
the device to work as intended in regards to applying hold force. Metric number 12 is
also given an importance of 2, since it is acceptable to apply hold at, for example, each
directional change of the door, although it is to prefer that the hold is only applied when
25
the leaves are near closing position.
Metric number 13 was added by ASSA ABLOY after the concept selection was made and
has therefore not been considered during the concept selection phase. Due to this, it has
been given an importance score of 0, so it does not affect the total scoring during concept
selection.
Table 4.6: Metric matrix
Metric no. Metric Importance Unit
1 Force applied 5 N
2 Keeps door closed 5 Binary
3 Size (height and depth) 4 mm×mm
4 Lifetime 5 Cycles
5 Production cost 3 Relative
6 Compatible with installed base 3 Binary
7 Opening time 5 seconds
8 Energy to produce and lifetime energy use 5 J
◦
9 Working temperature 3 C
10 Motor power loss 2 W
11 Direction of force 2 Direction
12 Gap when activated 2 mm
13 Standby power consumption 0 W
4.3.1 Benchmarking - information about the competition
After researching competitors’ available product information, no information on how they

produce hold force could be found. ASSA ABLOY is not mentioning this in their market-
ing material either.
The method of producing hold force is, from a customer’s perspective, rather insignificant.
For a customer, the standby power consumption or overall system efficiency is more rele-
vant. Also, most customers are probably unaware that the motors apply a hold force when
closed. Therefore it makes sense not to advertise this problem to customers in marketing
materials unless a spectacular alternative with marketing value exists.
The device is also an internal component of a product, not a product by itself. Therefore
it makes more sense to compare how the full product compares to the market, rather than
how single components compare individually.
Because of the reasons above, no benchmarking table has been made.
4.3.2 Ideal and marginally acceptable target values
In Table 4.7 the metrics from Table 4.6 have been given ideal values and marginally ac-
ceptable values. The ideal values are the values this project aim to achieve with the new
26
product and the marginally acceptable values are values that are not quite as the ones de-
sired though would still be accepted on the market.
As can be seen in 4.1.3, a legal requirement for a sliding door is that it should be able to be
80% open within 3 seconds. Therefore a marginally acceptable value for metric number
9 in Table 4.7 is any value below 3 seconds that still enables the door to be 80% opened
within 3 seconds.
Metric number 3 regard the product’s size, more precisely the height and depth. The height
is restricted to the height of the cover, though this is not used as the ideal value since the
ideal value is that it is much smaller than the total height of the cover. The same goes
for the depth. The depth is restricted to the length from the back plate to the front of the
wheel where the belt is attached. Therefore for this metric there is no ideal values assigned
because such a value can not be decided upon at the moment. It has earlier been said that
the product can be placed outside the cover if needed, though it would be optimal if it can
fit under the cover therefore the marginal values are set to the cover size.
Metric number 7 in Table 4.7 is something ASSA ABLOY will need to take a stand re-
garding in a later stage. This project will along the way compare solutions costs relative
to each other and in the end present options with different cost propositions.
Table 4.7: Ideal and marginally acceptable target values
No. Metric Unit Ideal Value Marginal values
1 Force applied N 0 –60 30 –70

2 Keeps the doors closed Binary Yes Yes
3 Size (height and depth) mm×mm <150 × <73,65
4 Lifetime Cycles >1000000 >1000000
5 Production cost Relative
6 Compatible with installed base Binary Yes No
7 Opening delay Seconds 0 <3
8 Energy to produce and lifetime energy use GJ <1,29 <38
◦
9 Working temperature C -20 –65 -10 –30
10 Motor power loss W 0 0,24 –3,19
11 Direction of force Direction Closing Both
12 Gap when activated mm 0 20
13 Standby power consumption W <1
27
5 Concept phase
This chapter will present how the concepts where generated, where inspiration was found
and the steps of evaluation, development and elimination of concepts.
5.1 Generating concepts
5.1.1 Similar solutions
A patent search for similar solutions was conducted using the patent scout tool from Innog-
raphy (Patentscout, n.d.). This yielded no results worth mentioning.
One of ASSA ABLOY’s own products which function was investigated is the belt lock,
a break-in protection device, shown in Figure 5.1. The belt lock has some interesting
features. It prevents the opening motion while still allowing the belt to move in the closing
direction. The belt lock is rated to withstand a force of 2000 N in the opening direction.
The negative aspects of this product is the loud sound it makes when it is pressed against
the belt and the door is closing. It is too strong, as it is intended to prevent someone
from prying the doors apart. It would need modification to decrease the force required to
override it in order to be used in a hold force application. Also the solenoid requires power
to work, which means it is not passive and needs integrating into the control system.
Figure 5.1: The belt lock that clicks into place and blocks the opening motion of the belt.
28
5.1.2 External research
To get inspiration and find existing solutions to sub-problems an external research was con-
ducted. Examples of different mechanisms was found in the book Mekanismer by Göran
Gerbert (1978). The film Mechanical Principles by Ralph Steiner (1931) also provided
inspiration for mechanisms.
Consulting with engineers at ASSA ABLOY and fellow students during the concept gen-
erating phase also provided some inspiration on different solutions.
Another interesting solution is a wardrobe sliding door made by IKEA. Though this sliding
door is not automatic there is still some features of interest for the project. (See Figure 5.2
below). This solution may not withstand the forces applied to ASSA ABLOY’s doors, so a
stronger version would probably be required for use as a hold force device in an automatic
sliding door.
Figure 5.2: Closing solution of interest from IKEA PAX sliding door. The part circled in red is the part
we have drawn inspiration from.
Another way of hindering sliding door movement can be seen in Figure 5.3, which is a
picture from the instruction video ”DENSC C60V - Self Closing Sliding Door Gear with
20 second delayed close” on how a sliding door with a delay in opening time is working
(D&E-Architectural-Hardware-Ltd, 2015). This mechanism enables movement in both
directions, so there is no stop involved only a slowdown of the opening movement.
29
Figure 5.3: Interesting concept for delaying the opening time of a sliding door (D&E-Architectural-
Hardware-Ltd, 2015).
5.1.3 Brainstorming
After brainstorming and discussions the following concepts, see Figure 5.4, Figure 5.5,
Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7, were presented. The illustrations of the concepts are very simple
at this stage and will be further developed later on. A more detailed description of the
intended function of the concepts can be found in Appendix B.1.
30
Figure 5.4: Concepts 1-7 explained in simple sketches.
31
32
33
34
5.2 Choice of concept
5.2.1 Concept screening
A first screening of the concepts were made early to quickly and easily identify which con-
cepts to proceed with. The screening criteria with explanations can be seen in Table 5.1.
The criteria chosen for this screening were based on the most important needs of the in-
tended solution for it to work on the doors. The concept needs to be able to generate a hold
force, and the energy cost needs to be less than today’s solution otherwise the concept is
not of interest. If the concept is not compatible with next generation doors the concept
is also without interest for this project. That the product should have a certain lifetime is
both a legal requirement as well as a requirement from ASSA ABLOY. A configurable
hold force, being able to install the product in today’s operators and one directional force
are requests from ASSA ABLOY.
Table 5.1: Explanation of the different points in the scoring process for the concept screening.
No. Criterion Weight Explanation
1 Hold force 5 1: Hold force is applied. -1: No hold force.

2 Configurable hold force 1 1: Force is configurable without steps. 0: Config-
urable at installation only. -1: Not configurable.
3 Lifetime 3 1: Lasts intended lifetime. -1: Breaks early.
4 Low energy cost 5 1: Energy cost lower than current solution. -1: Energy
cost higher than current solution.
5 Compatibility with installed base 3 1: Fully compatible on doors operating in field today.
0: Compatible with current doors but requires mount-
ing at installation or factory. -1: New design of door
is required.
6 Compatibility with next gen doors 5 1: Compatible with next gen doors. -1: Solution is
designed specifically for doors in field today.
7 One directional force 2 1: Only applies force in opening direction. -1: Force
is applied both ways.
Criterion 1, 4 and 6 where assigned a weight factor of 5 since these criteria are seen as
critical for the concept to be compatible with the already existing solution.
Criterion 3 and 5 where assigned a weight factor of 3 since these criteria are seen as good
to have though not crucial for the new concept to be compatible with the existing solution.
Criteria 3 where before assigned a factor of 5 but during later discussions with the super-
visor on ASSA ABLOY it was discussed that the product itself does not need to have a
lifetime of 1 million cycles, though this of course would be good, the important thing is
that it is not in the way of the door working properly if it would stop working.
Criterion 7 and 2 were given their weight factors with the same argument of them not
being crucial for the concept. They are both seen as having very low impact for the desired
function of the concept, one lower than the other (hence the weight 1 and 2).
Possible points on every criterion was 1, 0 and -1, where 1 meant that it fulfilled the cri-
terion and -1 that it did not or worked adversely to the criterion. This way of scoring was
chosen since it separated the concepts more than just using plus and minus scoring. Ta-
35
ble 5.2 and Table 5.3 shows the concept’s scores. The total score was given as an average
score per weight, see (5.1). P denotes a concept’s score for one criterion and W denotes
the criterion’s weight factor. n is the total number of criteria.
∑
n
Pi · Wi
i=1
Score = (5.1)
∑n
Wi
i=1
The concept screening was performed solely by the authors. This early in the concept
selection phase, it was deemed important to quickly eliminate a large number of concepts
to allow for a deeper development of the remaining concepts in order to make a more
qualified and motivated choice together with the ASSA ABLOY supervisor further on.
All concepts were given a score of 1 on criteria 1, 3, and 6. The motivation behind this
was that all concepts (this far) are designed to apply a hold force, last the intended lifetime
and be able to be built in to a future generation of doors not developed yet. For energy cost
the only concept to receive a score below 1 was concept 11, which is an electromechanical
solution which already exists today, and it requires energy to work.
All concepts with a score above 0,67 was proceeded with. The limit of 0,67 was decided
so that approximately half of the concepts were proceeded with. Concepts with a score
below 0,67 were decided upon individually if to be proceeded with. Concept 1, 6 and 14
were to be combined into one concept, named concept 24. Concept 19 was scrapped.
Concept 16 was decided to be proceeded with, despite it’s low score, although as a possible
combination with another concept. This because the concept by itself is seen as weak but
the technique is still seen as interesting and a good option for solving the problem.
36
Table 5.2: Concept screening matrix. Y stands for yes, N for no and C for combine.
No. Criterion Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Hold force 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 Configurable hold force 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1
3 Lifetime 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 Low energy cost 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
5 Compatibility with installed base 3 0 1 0 1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 -1 0 0
6 Compatibility with next gen doors 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 One directional force 2 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 0 1 1 -1
Total 0,67 0,79 0,83 0,79 0,75 0,67 0,71 0,71 0,75 0,71 0,63 0,63
Proceed C Yes Yes Yes Yes C Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Table 5.3: Concept screening matrix continued. Y stands for yes, N for no and C for combine.
37
No. Criterion Weight 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
1 Hold force 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 Configurable hold force 1 0 0 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 0 0
3 Lifetime 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 Low energy cost 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 Compatibility with installed base 3 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 1 0 -1 0
6 Compatibility with next gen doors 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 One directional force 2 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1
Total 0,54 0,67 0,79 0,63 0,58 0,63 0,67 0,92 0,88 0,54 0,83
Proceed No C Yes C No No No Yes Yes No Yes
5.2.2 First development of concepts
Each concept were given a detailed explanation of the intended working principle and all
parts needed. Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9 displays concepts 7, 8, 20, 21 and 23 which were
developed further. A more detailed description can be found in Appendix B.2. Concepts
2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 15 were considered detailed enough to evaluate later on and were
therefore not developed further. In Figure 5.9 the new combined concept, concept 24, is
displayed. Concept 24 is a combination for the former concepts 1, 6 and 14. A more
detailed explanation for the concept can be seen in Appendix B.2.
During the development of concept number 5 it was realised that removing the gearbox
to mount a brake and then adding back the gearbox was too complicated for the scope of
this project and it was not developed any further. It will however still be considered when
suggesting a final solution.
38
Figure 5.8: Development made to concept 7, 8, 20, 21.
39
Figure 5.9: Development made to concept 23 and the new concept 24.
5.2.3 Concept selection
For the second concept selection, criteria where added and removed. All the criteria and
the explanation for each can be found in Table 5.4. The weighting of the criteria was done
together with ASSA ABLOY supervisor.
Every concept is assumed to have a hold force, otherwise they would have been removed
prior to this stage, hence this criterion was removed. The criterion of one directional force
was also removed and replaced by two new criteria, opening force and closing force. Open-
ing force regards how the force acts when opening and closing force regards if there is a
force needed when closing and to what extent this force is affecting the closing process.
Hold force activation regards when and how the hold force is activated and if it in some
way hinder a normal movement pattern. Delay regards the possible delay in opening the
door due the hold force device stopping the door from opening instantly.
Discussion with supervisor from ASSA ABLOY resulted in two more selection criteria be-
ing added: reliability and the solutions dependence on other already existing components.
Reliability of the product refers to the chance of a failure occurring and if the device can
reset itself within a cycle. The solution’s dependence on other components is focusing
on whether the product will be affected if another part of the operator is replaced or re-
designed.
Lastly, the products passivity and backlash was added as criteria. Passivity regards if the
device is active and needs power and a controller. Backlash regards the possibility of a
backlash, when the door is performing the close kick action and then releases.
40
Table 5.4: Concept selection criteria
1 Lifetime 5 5: Lasts intended lifetime, easy to repair. 3: Lasts, hard to

repair. 0: Breaks early.
2 Configurable 1 5: 0-60 N. 4: Discrete values. 3: Only when installed. 0:
Only 60 N.
3 Low energy cost 5 5: No energy cost. 3: Enables motor downsizing. 0: Requires
more energy than current solution.
4 Comp. Installed 3 5: Installed easy in field. 3: Installed at factory/installation.
0: number
5 Comp. Next gen 5 5: Yes. 0: No.
6 Hold force activation 2 5: On demand. 0: As soon as direction is reversed.
7 Delay 3 5: No noticeable delay. 3: Minor, not annoying. 0: Very
noticeable.
8 Easy to produce 4 5: Simple assembly, common materials, easily produces parts.
0: Difficult to assemble, rare materials, complex production
of parts.
9 Opening force 3 5: No force when opening. 3: 60 N initially the no force. 0:
Unopenable.
10 Closing force 4 5: Unaffected by a force. 0: Cannot close.
11 Reliability 4 5: Very low risk of malfunction, can reset. 3: Very low risk,
no reset 0: High risk of malfunction, no reset.
12 Dependency on other parts 5 5: No dependencies. 0: Relies on another specific part to
function.
13 Passive 5 5: Works passively. 0: Needs active control action.
14 Backlash 4 5: No backlash. 0: Large noticeable backlash, leaves gap be-
tween doors.
The weight factors for criteria 1, 3 and 5 are the highest because lifetime and low energy
cost are critical to the project and compatibility with next generation doors ensures that
the device has future potential.
Criteria number 13 was assigned a high weight factor since if the solution is passive it is
likely to demand no or low amount of energy. If it is passive it will probably be a more
simple solution to install and use.
Criterion number 11 and 12 were also assigned high weight factors. These criteria was
proposed by ASSA ABLOY at this stage and they consider these important. Criterion
number 11 was given a slightly lower importance due to that it somewhat is intertwined
with metric number 1, which is already weighed at 5.
The concepts’ scoring in this selection can be seen in Table 5.5. All concepts with a score
above 3,85 were proceeded with. The limit 3,85 as proceeding limit was chosen so that at
least 5 concepts proceed to the next stage of concept development. This to not limit the
options too early.
The scoring was done by the development team with a reference to the explanations in Ta-
ble 5.4. The decisions regarding the scoring was based on comparisons to similar products
together with predictions and assumptions made on the intended working principle of the
different concepts.
The scores for criterion number 1 was motivated by the complexity of the solution. Many
41
moving parts increased the risk of failure and the reduced ease of repair, thus resulting
in a lower score for some concepts. Simple parts and an easily accessed location in the
operator meant a high score.
The scoring for criterion number 12 was motivated by how much a concept relied on spe-
cific parts of the operator. The main working principle (described in 2.1) was assumed to
be static, and thus relying on that the door has a door holder or belt did not impact the score.
However, if a concept relies on the specific belt used today (i.e. utilising its particular teeth
size and distance) it would impact its score.
Scoring in criterion number 14 was mostly based on if the concept required a motion that
relied on moving past the intended stop in order to engage the hold force. Concept number
20 is an example of where the door holder has to pass the catch for it to engage, thus leaving
a space between holder and catch.
42
Table 5.5: Concept scoring matrix for the developed concepts. Every concept with a score above 3,85 is proceeded with. The rest are scrapped.
No. Criterion Weight 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 15 20 21 23 24
1 Lifetime 5 4 4 3 3 3 5 2 4 5 4 4 4
2 Configurable 1 2 5 0 1 3 0 0 2 3 2 2 1
3 Low energy cost 5 3 3 5 4 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 4
4 Comp. Installed 3 3 1 5 0 2 3 0 3 2 1 3 3
5 Comp. Next gen 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 Hold force activation 2 2 5 3 4 4 5 3 3 3 4 4 4
7 Delay 3 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4
8 Easy to produce 4 5 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 5 4
9 Opening force 3 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3
10 Closing force 4 3 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4
11 Reliability 4 2 4 5 2 3 3 4 3 5 4 5 5
12 Dependency on other parts 5 4 3 1 2 4 0 1 1 4 4 4 5
43
13 Passive 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5
14 Backlash 4 5 5 5 4 5 3 2 5 3 3 4 5
Total 3,85 3,68 3,87 3,42 3,91 3,21 3,26 3,77 4,30 3,85 4,36 4,26
Continue No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes
5.2.4 Second development of concepts
During the second development a reset function was designed for the concepts where a
failure in the intended function could occur. A more detailed design of all parts involved
were made, meaning a basic production plan were made for each concept. Also the com-
plete mode of action was specified and decided upon.
During this development stage it was decided that concepts number 20 and 23 was to be
combined into one concept, with different possible connection methods, very much like
concept number 24 is a combination of multiple similar concept that only differ in the way
they translate the force. This concept was named concept number 25. This concept has no
figure for itself since this decision was made late in this development stage but from here
on concepts number 20 and 23 are referred to as concept number 25.
The second development of the concepts can be seen in Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11. More
detailed explanations can be seen Appendix B.3.
44
Figure 5.10: The second development of remaining concepts 4, 8 and 20.
45
Figure 5.11: The second development of remaining concepts 23 and 24.
5.2.5 Final concept selection
The criteria chosen for the final selection are displayed in Table 5.6. Since this is the last
selection a criterion regarding the feasibility was added. This regards the teams assumed
ability to develop a working prototype of a concept within the project’s time frame.
46
Another criterion added regards the ability to combine the hold force device with the night-
time burglary protection lock, this criterion is called combines with lock. The lifetime
criterion was replaced by maintenance, which also encompasses the ability to maintain a
solution during its lifetime.
A criterion regarding the ability to electromechanize a concept was also added. This was
to give extra points for concepts that could be integrated into smart doors in the future.
The scoring was done by the team alone.
Table 5.6: Explanations of the different meaning of the points for the criteria used in the final concept
selection.
1 Feasibility 5 5: 100% doable. 3: Some uncertainties on how to do. 0: No doable

solution found.
2 Dependency 4 5: Independent. 3: Relies on some specifics, but can be modified
easily. 0: Needs one specific part to function.
3 Backlash 4 5: No backlash. 3: Some possible backlash, but not more than today.
0: Always backlash that produces a gap.
4 Reliability 5 5: Very rare malfunction, self resets. 3: Very rare malfunction, no
reset, or vice versa. 0: Malfunctions probable and no reset.
5 Combines with lock 2 5: Can be locked. 0: Cannot be locked.
6 Maintenance 3 5: Easily repaired and maintained, long lifetime. 3: Long lifetime,
maintenance difficult or vice verso. 0: Short lifetime, difficult to
maintain.
7 Closing force 3 5: No closing force required. 0: Cannot close.
8 Configurable 1 5: From 0-60N. 4: Discrete values. 3: Only at installation. 0: num-
ber
9 Electromechanic 1 5: Can be easily electromechanized. 0: Cannot no be electromecha-
nized.
10 Easy to produce 4 Easily produced parts, common materials, easy assembly. 0: Diffi-
cult produced parts, rare materials, hard to assemble.
11 Compatibility 3 5: Installable in the field on active doors. 3: Installable on current
models at factory/installation. 0: Requires redesign.
The weight factors are mostly unchanged for the criteria carried over from the last round.
The new criterion number 1 were given a high weight, since if the concept is seen as
too difficult to produce it is not worth taking further. The new criteria number 5 and 9
were given low weights, since they are not considered very important, but meritorious if
fulfilled.
Table 5.7 shows the scores for each concept. One concept was not proceeded with and
it was the concept with the lowest score. Concept number 24 and 25 clearly qualified.
Concept number 4 was proceeded with because of its simple design and potential of being
compatible with already installed doors.
47
Table 5.7: The table shows the scoring of the concept for the final concept selection.
No. Criterion Weight 4 8 24 25
1 Feasibility 5 5 3 5 3
2 Dependency 4 3 5 5 5
3 Backlash 4 5 5 5 5
4 Reliability 5 4 3 5 5
5 Combines with lock 2 0 3 5 4
6 Maintenance 3 5 4 4 4
7 Closing force 3 2 5 5 5
8 Configurable 1 0 1 0 2
9 Electromechanic 1 0 5 5 5
10 Easy to produce 4 5 3 5 4
11 Compatibility 3 5 3 3 3
Total 3,8 3,7 4,6 4,2

Continue Yes No Yes Yes
48
6 Prototyping
This chapter will present the work and developments done along the way to the final pro-
totype. The reasons behind the chosen concept will also be presented.
6.1 Proof of concept
After choosing which concepts to create prototypes of, planning for prototype manufac-
turing was initiated.
The first stage of prototyping focused on proof of concept. Each concept was realised
through rudimentary models. These models were made either by hand or by 3D-printing.
The purpose of these first prototypes was to prove if the concepts could perform as in-
tended.
6.1.1 Concept number 4
Concept number 4.1 was tested by using a plastic rod and grinding one side down so it
would fit onto the wheel of the door holder. A piece of rubber was attached to the rod
to increase friction. This effectively stopped the wheel from turning when the rod was
inserted far enough. See figure Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1: Model of concept number 4.1, the upper arm will break the front wheel of the door holder.
49
A simple model of concept number 4.2 was drawn up in CAD. It can be seen in Figure 6.2.
This model was 3D printed and then tested.
Figure 6.2: 3D CAD model of concept number 4.2, the arms will break the front wheel of the door
holder.
Concept number 24 has 3 different connection types: magnetic, open snap and closed snap.
All of these were modelled separately.
Closed snap connection
The first prototype of the closed snap connection can be seen in Figure 6.3. A strip of steel
was bent into shape and a cylinder was used as a knob. This was used to verify that a force
was required to insert the knob into the holder as well as a force to remove it. Testing
proved that this was true and it was therefore decided that the concept should be modelled
using CAD. To speed up the dimensioning of the holder, FEM (Finite Element Method)
analysis was used. This helped the team to design a holder with appropriate proportions
without unnecessary trial and error testing. During the 3D-cad modelling it was decided
to make two different designs, one for a metal holder and one for a plastic holder. Both of
these were analysed using FEM. The models can be seen in Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5.
50
Figure 6.3: First handmade prototype of concept 24 with closed snap connection.
Figure 6.4: 3D CAD model of concept number 24 closed snap connection made with metal.
51
Figure 6.5: 3D CAD model of concept number 24 closed snap connection made with plastic.
Open snap connection
The open snap connection was only modelled in CAD. The model can be seen in Figure 6.6
and Figure 6.7.
Figure 6.6: The bottom piece of concept number 24 open snap connection.
52
Figure 6.7: The top piece of concept number 24 open snap connection.
Magnetic connection
The magnetic connection design was made with 15x3 mm disc shaped neodymium mag-
nets. A mounting for these magnets was drawn up in CAD as well, see Figure 6.8. The
mounting piece was made with three different dimensions in order to be able to analyse the
optimum play needed between the magnet and the mounting piece to guarantee a smooth
installation, removal and change of the magnet.
Figure 6.8: The holder for the magnets in a magnetic connection.
53
Due to the complexity of this concept it was modelled with CAD and then 3D printed
directly. Figure 6.9 shows a screen shot of the model where the green part is the moving
part and the red part is locked.
Figure 6.9: 3D CAD model of concept number 25. It consists of two parts. The spring that will hinder
motion in one direction is not seen in this model.
6.1.4 Discussion and continued development
Concept number 4
The biggest strength of this concept is it’s simplicity to be mounted on an already installed
door. This said the other concepts are stronger in almost every other aspect, also this
concept was never considered to be an alternative for next generation doors. Therefore
it was decided to stop developing the concept further. The concept’s working principle
has been proven and it will be considered when recommending a solution but for now this
project will focus on developing a more long term solution.
54
Concept number 24
The closed snap connection designs for concept number 24 shown in Figure 6.4 and Fig-
ure 6.5 both worked as expected, though a risk of friction eroding the contact surfaces
of the opening was identified. This could be remedied by using two rollers instead of a
fixed cylindrical rod as knob. Another, more concerning, issue found is the temperature’s
effect on material properties, especially elasticity and fragility. The same problem affect
the open snap connection as well.
The magnetic connection was not tested beyond the magnets capacity to carry a heavy
enough load. It was reasoned that, if the force from one magnet is not enough, two magnets
could be used. These magnets also retain their magnetic metrics in the relevant temperature
range (K&J Magnetics, n.d.). One possible drawback is the risk of metallic dirt getting
attached to the magnets and affecting it’s capacity.
Another problem identified with concept number 24 was that the connection is stiff, re-
gardless of design. All connection designs consists of one moving part and one fixed part.
This gives no margin for error when assembling the door and could result in a gap between
the door leaves. It also poses a risk that the hold force device breaks during the close kick
action. In further development, this has to be remedied for the concept to be viable.
Because of both the closed snap and open snap connections’ susceptibility to tempera-
ture changes and the magnetic connection’s resistance to it, it is decided to only continue
developing the magnetic solution.
Concept number 25
Concept number 25 worked as intended when tested. The teeth on the inside of the free-
wheel would need to be optimised to minimise the possible gap. The spring also needs to
be optimised in order to get the correct hold force.
For this concept to be testable on a door it would require some way for the door holder to
actually rotate the freewheel. This could be accomplished by mounting a cog rack on the
door holder and turning the outside of the freewheel into a cog wheel.
Another method of rotating the freewheel would be with a version of a Geneva mechanism.
This would require accurate installation and mounting on the door to prevent a gap and to
ensure that the hold force is applied as needed.
The accurate placing required during installation combined with the rather complex design
problems identified resulted in the decision to halt development of this concept.
6.2 Developing concept no. 24
In this section the different developments of concept no. 24 will be shown. After each
development, tests were done by hand. The tests were to prove the functionality. Different
magnets and springs were used in the tests to test for different loads.
55
6.2.1 Stage 2
Problem
The major problem identified with concept number 24 in prototype stage 1 was that the
connection between the moving and the fixed part is stiff. One other possible concern is
if magnetic dirt can affect the magnetic part.
To illustrate the fixed connection issue, Figure 6.10 shows where on the door this device
would be placed. The door holder arm seen in Figure 6.11 is moving and stiffly connected
to the door holder. The other part of the connection is mounted on the wall. This connection
needs to be flexible to allow for some kind of tolerance in assembly. A flexible connection
will also help to reduce the gap by applying a constant force.
56
took
TIFFJoong on
IDF
II g
FIFI
o a
Figure 6.10: A more detailed explanation of where concept 24 is placed on the door.
57
Changes
The proposed solution to the stiff connection is making one of the connections able to flex
upon contact. This was realised by making the connection between the moving and the
fixed part spring dampened. The proposed design is shown in Figure 6.11. The magnet
plate (fixed part before) where the magnet on the door holder arm (moving part) connects
was mounted on four springs. In the fully outstretched position the magnetic plate was
stopped from moving too far by a rim. This rim would also be magnetic to keep the mag-
netic plate in the outstretched position when the door holder arm is disconnected. The door
holder arm is supposed to connect magnetically to the magnetic plate and the springs are
damping the movement and helps to position the connection. The spring’s natural position
is in the middle of the housing. This will provide a constant closing force to prevent a gap
between the door leaves. When the door holder arm is disconnected, the magnetic plate is
kept in the outstretched position (the position seen in Figure 6.11) by the magnets on the
rim.
Figure 6.11: The spring dampened connection. The housing contains four springs, a magnet plate and
a spring guide. The magnet plate can move freely inside the housing but is kept in the house by a rim.
The spring guide can extend out the back, through the backplate, when the magnet plate is moved.
Results
Due to problems that occurred while 3D-printing, this prototype was never functional.
Instead some improvements that were identified during the development of this prototype
is being implemented in the next stage.
Even though this could not be tested, it suited as a size test for the model. It was found
that it was too wide and the tolerances to small.
58
6.2.2 Stage 3
Changes
During the development of the prototype in stage 2, other improvements were conceived
but not realised in that stage since they came up too late in the process. The improvements
have been shortlisted below.
• The magnet is to be placed inside the housing instead of on the door holder arm.
This to constrain the magnetic field to a small area.
• Connect the magnet to the magnet plate.
• A tension spring will be used inside the box. These will help pull in the arm when
it is connected, providing a constant hold force that prevents a gap.
• To hinder the door holder arm from crushing and possibly destroying the tension
springs, a stop is added to the spring guide so the magnet plate cannot move too far
back.
• The design of the door holder arm changed and a pocket was added to place the
magnet in.
• Fasten the springs inside the housing. Hooks were added to the magnet plate and
the back plate.
The problem with size and tolerances from the previous model were also corrected. The
new model can be seen in Figure 6.12. The front of the door holder arm, were the magnet
is attached, was made square instead of round. A pocket was added to place the magnets
in. A stop on the spring guide was added. Hooks for the springs to be attached to were
added to the back plate and the magnet plate. This second model was also made slimmer
after a size check was made on an operator.
Figure 6.12: Development of the spring dampened connection. The housing has been extended to allow
for a longer range of motion. Hooks have been added on the inside so that the springs can be suspended.
The magnet is now placed inside the housing and the arm is made of magnetic material in the connecting
end.
59
Results
The hooks to hold the springs and the stop on the spring guide was successful. The funnel
guided the door holder arm effectively into the housing.
One problem was that the door holder arm got caught on the rim of the housing when
exiting the housing, preventing it from moving away freely. The back plate broke after
heavy use and will need reinforcement. The magnet force to spring force ratio was too
low and weaker springs and/or stronger magnetic force are needed.
6.2.3 Stage 4
Changes
Based on the conclusions in stage 3 the following changes were made. The full model can
be seen in Figure 6.13
• The door holder arm was made uniform to prevent catching inside the housing.
• Stronger magnets were used. One square attached to the magnet plate and two dif-
ferent versions for the door holder arm.
• Two door holder arms were made, one for each type of magnet.
• Size of the housing was adjusted to fit the new magnets.
• The back plate was made thicker.
Figure 6.13: The picture shows the development done in stage 4, the door holder arm is uniform and
the backplate is made thicker. Extra stops are also added to prevent the spring guide from moving too
far.
60
Results
During testing, it was spontaneously tested if this prototype could be held in the out-
stretched position by magnetic force. This was tested by placing metal strips in the gap
where the funnel meets the housing. The magnetic force was strong enough between the
inner magnet and the strips that, with two springs, the magnet plate could be held in the
outstretched position after the door holder arm had disconnected from the magnet plate.
The hooks was found to be too weak as well as the stops on the spring guide. It was also
noticed that the stops were placed in such a way that it interfered with the springs motions.
6.2.4 Stage 5
Changes
From the last prototype the model has been updated so that it only holds two springs inside.
The hooks along with the stops on the spring guide have been made more robust. The stops
have also been placed on the outer corners of the spring guide instead of in the middle, so
that they are not in the way of the springs. Slots where magnetic strips is to be placed was
created. The full model can be seen in Figure 6.14 and Figure 6.15 shows a better view of
the slots for the magnetic strips..
Figure 6.14: The model for the stage 5 prototype.The spring guide has been changed to only hold two
springs and the hooks have been made thicker.
61
Figure 6.15: Close-up of the housing. The highlighted areas show where the holes for the metal pieces
are located.
Results
This prototype worked as intended. The concept is now considered proven. The next step
is to implement this concept with more realistic dimensions.
Testing showed that if stronger spring were used, the inside arm would not stay in the end
position. The springs were also too weak to actually be used in a real door. The magnetic
force between inner and outer arm were about 40N, so a stronger magnetic connection is
also needed.
6.2.5 Stage 6
Changes
As the prototype in the last stage was a successful proof of concept, focus from this stage
and forward will be to implement the working principle with more realistic components
and dimensions.
Round, stronger magnets will be used and a direct contact between magnetic material and
the magnet on the magnet plate is needed. Smaller and stronger springs will also be used.
Preferably only one spring will be used.
62
Direct contact between magnet and metallic material in the rim are to be implemented.
This is to maximise the magnetic force in the end position. This will be implemented
by making the housing a two part construction with a latch mechanism. The two part
construction allows for a magnetic ring to inserted between the housing and the funnel.
To keep the magnet plate in position a track on the inside of the housing has been created.
Matching arms have been made on the magnet plate and the backplate. The arms on the
backplate works as stops so that the magnet plate can not move to far back. Figure 6.16
shows the model.
Figure 6.16: The model for the stage 6 prototype. The overall size has been reduced. The round design
accommodates one spring inside.
Results
The latches between the housing and the funnel were too weak. The arms on the backplate
were to weak and thin. The backplate is too large and adds to much size without providing
any critical functionality. At the time of testing, the springs and magnets to be used were
not available, no tests testing the magnetic connection or the spring force were conducted.
6.2.6 Stage 7
Changes
For this design the latches between housing and funnel have been made more robust. The
backplate have been divided into two parts. One inner part, the purple part in Figure 6.17,
and outer part, seen in Figure 6.18, which locks the inner part between itself and the hous-
ing. The magnet plate stops on the inner part of the backplate have been made thicker.
The hooks have been reinforved along it’s depth. The door holder arm is the same as from
63
stage 4 though the size has been adjusted to fit with the new smaller design.
The tracks within the housing, that works as a guide for the magnet plate, have been in-
creased in depth. The funnel on the front part of the housing has been made thicker in
order to be more durable.
Figure 6.17: Stage 7 prototype model. The backplate has been made with a latch mechanism to reduce
overall circumference.
Figure 6.18: Better view of the latch mechanism for the backplate. The back plate has 4 small latches
and the housing has a rim on the outside. The rim has 4 gaps the size of the latches on the backplate.
The backplate is pushed in with the latches between the gaps and then turned so that the latches are not
aligned with the gaps, thus hindering any movement.
64
Figure 6.19: A view of the funnel latch mechanism. The funnel has 4 latches and the housing has 4 holes
in the walls. The latches are inserted into the holes and the funnel is turned until the latches are locked
in place.
Results
The updated latches on the funnel were successful. The new backplate was also successful.
The thicker arms on the inside backplate was also successful. The magnet plate did not go
straight along the tracks inside the housing. It kept turning and got jammed.
The magnet and springs to be used were not available while testing, so no testing for that
function was performed.
65
6.2.7 Stage 8
Changes
To keep the magnetic plate from turning inside the housing, the stops were moved from
the backplate to the magnetic plate, see Figure 6.23 for reference. This removed the need
for the part with a hook and stops (the purple part in Figure 6.17) and the hook could be
placed directly onto the backplate.
The rim on the housing that holds the backplate in place has been updated with a stop, so
that overturning the backplate when assembling it is not possible.
A mounting plate, shown in Figure 6.21, was also added. The plate does affect the function
and is there only to make the device easier to mount on a real door.
Figure 6.20: Overall view of the updated design. The stops on the backplate have been moved to the
spring guide. The backplate is now only one part again.
66
Figure 6.21: View with the mounting plate shown. The mounting plate does not affect performance, it
only allows for easier mounting to a door.
Figure 6.22: The improved latch mechanism from stage 7. The rim now has stops, to prevent the
backplate from rotating too far when assembled.
67
Figure 6.23: The updated spring guide and backplate. The stops have been moved to the spring guide
and the backplate has been merged with the stop plate.
Result
This version of the prototype could not be printed in time so no tests could be done. The
goal is to print it and test it at a later stage. This is however not shown in this report.
6.3 Function of concept no. 24
Here the function of concept no. 24 will be shown. The device is active in three of the
states displayed in Figure 2.5.
The top picture depicts when the device is not in action. The door is either in state S3 or
in either S2 or S4 and has opened wide enough for the hold force to not be applied. Here
the main thing to notice is how the magnet holder stays in the outer position to enable
connection when the door closes.
The middle picture shows when the door holder arm connects or disconnects to the device.
This is in either state S2 or S4. In S2 it will take 60 N to disconnect the arm from the magnet
and it is here where the main part of the hold force is applied.
In S4, the magnet connects with the door holder arm and the force in the closing direction
will release the magnet plate from the rim and the spring will pull in the door into closed
position, S1.
The bottom picture displays when the device is in S1 and the door is closed. The spring
will provide some force in the closing direction and prevent any gap from appearing.
68
Figure 6.24: Here a closing sequence is shown. From state S3 to (top picture) to S1 (bottom picture).
The middle picture shows either state S2 och S4.
69
7 Discussion
This chapter will discuss and bring forward the team’s recommendation for proceeding
with the work of finding a solution to the hold force problem on today’s doors.
7.1 Suggested solution
First of all, any solution will vary in effect depending on what type of door it is mounted
on. The more time a door is closed, the more effect a hold force device will have. A
door that is constantly open or opens and closes very frequently will benefit far less. This
because the hold force device only saves power when the door is closed, not when the door
is open or in motion. For a door that frequently opens and closes this kind of mechanical
solution can even be an interference. For example if a door gets a signal to open midway
in a closing sequence, the change of direction can take longer if the mechanical hold force
has been activated than what it would for the doors existing today.
The argument can be made that it can be beneficial to consider not using a hold force device
on certain doors. It is recommended that more research is made into this to see when or if
it is more beneficial to use today’s solution versus the new suggested mechanical solution.
Therefore a favourable solution would be one where the mechanical solution to the hold
force can easily be installed or activated and deactviated easily. This will provide the
customer with a more flexible solution.
During the concept generating and development phase some ideas where seen as more
interesting and doable than others. Below these concepts are listed.
• Concept number 4, brake on wheel

• Concept number 5, brake on motor
• Concept number 24, with magnets
Concept number 4 is only suggested for already existing operators. The concept was de-
signed with the idea of finding a solution that could quickly be produced and installed
on already existing operators. Therefore this is more seen as a complement to a solution
which can only be installed or integrated on new operators and not as a solution by itself.
Concept number 5 was during an early stage of the development process paused since it
was considered to complicated to develop given the scope of this project. The upside of this
solution is that it would require no additional space (since the brake would be integrated
into the existing gearbox) and that the hold force would be configurable between 0-60N.
70
The solution could still be viable, but would require ASSA ABLOY to find a suitable
motor manufacturer that could develop the brake. This would likely limit ASSA ABLOY’s
options in the long run and is therefore not suggested as a solution.
Concept number 24 including magnets and springs that has been developed and presented
in the prototype stage will according to the team of this project be possible to implement
on new doors. Though the solution is not yet a finished, perfectly working product, the
concept have been proven. This solution is first and foremost designed so that it can be
implemented into new doors. This said it is not ruled out that it can be designed to fit into
and be installed in already existing doors. This could be made into an upgrade that ASSA
ABLOY can sell to their customers, if they want to lower their energy consumption.
Although it has not been mounted on a real life door and tested it is believed that integrating
this solution would not be difficult. Currently there are no other components placed where
it would it located. If integrated with a nightlock feature it would also remove a another
component allowing for more space. The final solution’s size is much smaller than the
largest allowed by the hood and belt.
It is also recommended to look further into integrating a night lock into concept number 24.
This could be easily done using a bolt and a making a hole in the door holder arm. When
in locking position, the bolt moves through the hole in the door holder arm and keeps the
door from being opened.
It remains to be decided which material to make the housing of, but some sort of plastic is
recommended. It is cheap and the application don’t have to withstand too large forces so
it should be strong enough. Plastic will also not interfere with any magnetic fields.
7.2 Comparison with target specifications
Table 7.1: Comparison made between final prototype and the ideal values in target specifications.
No. Metric Unit Ideal Value Marginal values Correspondence
1 Force applied N 0 –60 30 –70 Yes

2 Keeps the doors closed Binary Yes Yes Yes
3 Size (height and depth) mm×mm <150 × <73,65 Yes
4 Lifetime Cycles >1000000 >1000000 N/A
5 Production cost Relative N/A
6 Compatible with installed base Binary Yes No No
7 Opening delay Seconds 0 <3 Yes
8 Energy to produce and lifetime GJ <1,29 <38 Yes
energy use
◦
9 Working temperature C -20 –65 -10 –30 N/A
10 Motor power loss W 0 0,24 –3,19 N/A
11 Direction of force Direction Closing Both Yes
12 Gap when activated mm 0 20 Yes
13 Standby power consumption W <1 Yes
71
As this is the final model, a comparison was made to the ideal target values presented in
Table 4.7. It is believed that the prototype will hold for the intended force applied, though
this has unfortunately not been tested yet, the prototype was designed with these forces
in mind. The doors are kept closed with this prototype and the size is well below the
maximum (31 mm x 31 mm). The lifetime could not be tested, though it is seen as highly
likely that the prototype (made with the right material) will achieve a lifetime of > 1000000
cycles. The production cost have not been calculated. The design could be modified to be
fitted into the the installed base, but the proposed design does not. The prototype should
not cause any noticeable delay in the opening time. Temperature working range depends
on what material is used, though it is seen as highly likely to fulfil this requirement. Motor
power has not been tested, but this will vary how many cycles the door opens as it will
probably require more power to break free from the magnetic force applied when opening,
it will probably be a small increase per cycle but no power loss when the doors are closed.
This should make the overall power loss a lot smaller than the current and well within the
marginal parameters. The directional force is only in one way, the closing direction. After
the motor has overcome the power of 60N in opening direction there is no force applied.
The prototype is designed to eliminate the occurrence of a gap being formed between the
doors when closed.
The energy production has been roughly estimated using the embodied energy of HDPE
plastic used in the housing, a spring made out of spring steel with a material weight of
5 grams and a magnet neodymium. Due to lack of data on the embodied energy on rare
earth magnets, they have been assumed to have the approximate embodied energy of virgin
aluminium.
The housing energy cost was calculated as if the whole housing was a solid piece of HDPE.
This was done to simplify the calculations but to also err on the side of overestimation of
the energy cost. A 5 gram spring is about twice the size of the springs that are used in the
device, but a larger value was chosen to overestimate.
The biggest factor for uncertainty in this calculation is the assumption that rare earth mag-
nets have the same embodied energy as aluminium. This assumption is based in that alu-
minium has a very high embodied energy and the manufacturing process for rare earth
magnets requires multiple steps of heating and mining of several materials.
The calculation was performed with the use of Equation 7.1a or Equation 7.1b.
The embodied energy data has been gathered from different sources on the internet. Ac-
cording to (Martelaro, 2016), the embodied energy of spring steel is 2,2 GJ/kg. The em-
bodied energy for HDPE is 71 MJ/kg according to (Bouestad, 2005). The embodied energy
of aluminium is 170 MJ/kg according to (Milne, n.d.). This is just to give a rough estimate
of the energy cost. Further more detailed analysis will be required to get a more definitive
answer.
E = M · EEmbedded (7.1a)
E = V · ρ · EEmbedded (7.1b)
where M is the mass of the part, V is the volume of the part and ρ it’s density.
72
Table 7.2: Data and results for the energy cost calculations.
Part Material Volume [m3 ] Density Weight [kg] Embodied Energy cost
[kg/m3 ] energy [GJ]
[M J/kg]
Housing HDPE 72 · 10− 6 950 76 · 106 5, 20 · 10− 3

Spring Spring steel 0,005 2, 2 · 106 0, 011 · 10− 3
Magnet Neodymium 2, 31 · 10− 6 7500 170 · 106 2, 95 · 10− 3
Total 8, 16 · 10− 3
As can be seen in Table 7.2 and Table 4.7, the estimated production energy cost is far less
than the marginal values which is promising.
7.3 Future Work
To make the product work properly, the right magnets and spring need to be found. This
will probably be a trade off regarding size vs. cost, as magnets with a high magnetic flux
density is much more expensive than magnets with lower magnetic flux density. Springs
are overall more commonplace, regarding both size and strength, so finding a suitable one
should merely be a question about testing.
The housing presented in this project requires modification depending in the springs and
magnets used. Currently, it is designed for easy assembly without having to using screws
or adhesives. This, could probably be disregarded if it where to be mass produced. The
current design is also optimised in regards to overall size, which, if it where to be designed
into a new door, probably could be disregarded as well.
Housing material also needs to be determined. Research on the material for the different
parts needs to be made. The material used for the prototypes (a material provided by
ASSA ABLOY which is a mixture between many different materials but has similarities
with ABS) is not strong enough, it is light but in many ways not robust enough. A cheap,
stronger plastic would probably be sufficient and will not interfere with any magnetic
fields.
A manufacturing plan needs to be done to get an idea about the price per piece if the
suggested solution would be produced.
Test with the prototype mounted on an operator needs to be run. Due to lack of time only
tests on the function of the concept has been made for now. Suggestions have been made
to how the concept should be mounted on the operator, though this also needs to be tested
and improved.
73
8 Conclusion
In this chapter a self evaluation of the project will be made, focusing on what would have
been done, had there been more time.
8.1 Evaluation
Overall we are happy with the outcome of the project. One of our goals was to be able
to present a working prototype. We have a prototype for proof of concept and one for
illustration of the intended size. This is according to us an acceptable result. Our goal was
to get a working prototype in the right size, though this was hard due to problems with
finding the right magnets and springs in both size and strength.
We put much time into deciding upon and planning the different steps of the project, some-
thing that we are very pleased about. This simplified the work along the way since we
almost always new what the next step was. Though one fault in our time plan was that
we did not have time to do an economical analysis of our suggested solution. The reason
for this was mainly that the design of the prototype was decided upon to late and therefore
there was no time to investigate the possible cost for the product. We have not decided
upon a material nor exact magnets or springs. Our focus was on producing a working con-
cept. The only thing we can say regarding cost is that the magnets will probably be the
component that has the highest individual cost.
With above said, we wish that we had more time to do a economical analysis of the different
solutions as well as more research regarding different materials. This would have made
our solution more credible especially when presenting it to ASSA ABLOY. Though there
was no time for this as mentioned.
74
References
Bouestad, I. (2005). Eco profiles of the european plastics industry high density polyethy-
lene (hdpe) (Tech. Rep.). Brussels, Belgien: Plastics Europe.
Builders-Hardware-Manufacturers-Association. (2015, 10). ANSI/BHMA A156.10-2011 I
(Standard). New York, New York: Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association.
D&E-Architectural-Hardware-Ltd. (2015, April). DENSC C60V - self clos-
ing sliding door gear with 20 second delayed close. (Retrieved from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRhQL3Kx9oo)
Gerbert, G. (1978). Mekanismer maskinelement fk. Lund, Sverige: Institutionen för
maskinelement, Tekniska Högskolan i Lund.
K&J Magnetics, I. (n.d.). Temperature and neodymium magnets.
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=temperature-and-neodymium-magnets.
(Last accessed: 2019-01-08)
Martelaro, N. (2016, 12). Energy Use in US Steel Manufacturing (Tech. Rep.). Stanford
University: Physics of Energy.
Milne, G. (n.d.). Embodied energy. http://www.yourhome.gov.au/materials/embodied-
energy. (Last accessed: 2019-01-09)
Patentscout. (n.d.). https://patentscout.innography.com/register?r=%2F. (Last accessed:
2018-09-18)
Steiner, R. (1931). Mechanical principles. film. New York, New York.
Swedish-Standards-Institute. (2012, 10). SS-EN 16005:2012 (Standard). Stockholm, Swe-
den: Swedish Standards Institute.
Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. (2012). Product design and development (5international ed.).
New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. (2014). Produktutveckling. konstruktion och design. Lund,
Sweden: Studentlitteratur. (Swedish translation of (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2012) by
Silvia Bengtsson)
75
Appendix A Measurement data
Table A.1: Push force measurements data from testing.
Hold force setting[N] Measured force 1 [N] Measured force 2 [N] Measured force 3 [N]
0 3,2 3,5 0,1

5 4,5 4 1,8
10 7,7 1,9 7,3
20 16,1 7,2 15
30 22,5 13,3 15,8
40 28,6 22 27,6
50 33,1 27 32,4
60 39,2 35 39,2
76
Table A.2: The table shows the data collected during the observation of closed time (in seconds) on ICA
Malmborgs and H&M entrance sliding doors. The study was made during 15 min.
ICA Malmborgs H&M
8,51 31,30
2,76 1,18
12,82 7,16
1,83 43,23
5,10 1,02,17
5,3 37,58
16,16 8,72
0,93 54,07
19,97 15,99
20,85 1,88
7,93 7,95
0,3 4,42
4,19 36,66
5,22 10,20
17,07 51,46
3,90 28,36
7,46 22,92
1,69 4,56
6,83 4,11
3,60 36,13
3,60 5,0
2,09
6,0
42,8
14,73
14,02
27,05
19,19
Table A.3: The table shows the compiled data collected during the observation of closed time on ICA
Malmborgs and H&M entrance sliding doors. The study was made during 15 min.
ICA Malmborgs H&M
Longest time closed [s] 20:85 1:02:17

Shortest time closed [s] 0:30 01:18
Total time closed [s] 2:36:02 10:00:93
Average time closed [s] 07:43 21:46
77
Table A.4: A table over calculated power loss depending on motor size, type of usage for door and time span. Units for the energy lost is in kWh. HF is
short for hold force. The theoretical power loss for the small motor when applying a hold force above 30 N has been left out, since its maximum hold force
is 36 N.
Location Motor Timespan HF = 0 N HF = 10 N HF = 20 N HF = 30 N HF = 40 N HF = 50 N HF = 60 N
ICA Small 1 day 0,000 0,006 0,025 0,057
1 year 0,000 2,322 9,286 20,894
5 years 0,000 11,608 46,432 104,472
10 years 0,000 23,216 92,864 208,944
Large 1 day 0,000 0,003 0,011 0,024 0,042 0,066 0,096
1 year 0,000 0,969 3,876 8,722 15,506 24,228 34,888
5 years 0,000 4,846 19,382 43,610 77,528 121,138 174,438
10 years 0,000 9,691 38,764 87,219 155,056 242,276 348,877
H&M Small 1 day 0,000 0,010 0,041 0,091

1 year 0,000 3,709 14,835 33,378
5 years 0,000 18,543 74,173 166,888
78
10 years 0,000 37,086 148,345 333,777
Large 1 day 0,000 0,004 0,017 0,038 0,068 0,106 0,153
1 year 0,000 1,548 6,192 13,933 24,769 38,702 55,731
5 years 0,000 7,740 30,962 69,664 123,847 193,511 278,656
10 years 0,000 15,481 61,924 139,328 247,694 387,022 557,312
Appendix B Concept art
B.1 First concept sketches
Figure B.1: Concept no. 1. A latch that is made up of two components. One is mounted on a moving
part of the door and one is stationary. When the door reaches its closed position the latch connects and
it requires a force to unlatch it.
79

B.2: Concept no. 2. A brake block is suspended in a pendulum. The block does not apply any
Figure
force
when the belt is moving in the closing direction. When the belt is moving in the opening direction

it requires a certain force to move the block past its original position and to push it down. When it is
hanging, it is no longer applying any force. When the belt’s direction is reversed, the block will climb
up and go back to its original position.
I Brakes
Figure B.3: Concept no. 3. A brake on the pulley wheel. Inspired by a regular bicycle v-brake.
80
AA
1 i I
Figure B.4: Concept no. 4. A brake on the door holder wheel. The brake block is in form of a slim stick
that is mounted in the middle of the rail. The door holder is being pushed into position by the motor
when they are closing and is lodged stuck under the brake block. It requires a certain force to pull away
when opening.
ooooooooan
Figure B.5: Concept no. 6. Inspired by stops in normal closet sliding doors. A knob (the orange ball)
is mounted somewhere on the door and a pocket is mounted on the rail. When the door is in closed
position, the knob is pushed into the pocket and it requires a force to get the knob out of the pocket.
81

0 a 0 2 e

vvH HAHA

Figure
B.6: Concept no. 7. A bump that stops the door holder from moving. The bump is first flat, and
after the
door holder passes it, it activates and rises. It takes a certain force to push the bump down so
the door
holder can move in the opening direction again.

Figure B.7: Concept no. 8. A catch that pushes on the door holder in the closing direction, applying
force.
82
mum
nunsf g rest
Figure B.8: Concept no. 9. A rotating catch that stops the belts movement. When deactivated, it goes
into a rest position where is does not interfere with belt movement. When activated it stops the belt from
moving.
Figure B.9: Concept no. 10. This is intended to be put on the rail, as a sort of track. The track will
get pushed down by the door holder as it rolls over it and when the holder has passed the big bump the
track will spring back up. To push down the track from the steeper end, it will require a much larger
force. Once it is pushed down, the holder can roll over it as usual.
83
Terra
movement
Figure B.10: Concept no. 11. Belt lock. This is pretty much the same solution as showed in Figure 5.1,
but modified to be weaker and faster in response.
TIE
Figure B.11: Concept no. 12. The door leaves are held together by magnets on the sides that comes into
contact with each other when the door is closed.
84
m'agnet l
magnet
Figure B.12: Concept no. 13. A magnet force acts between the rail and the door holder, keeping the
door holder in place until a large enough force pushes it away.
gnagnet
o_0
BEEN
Figure B.13: Concept no. 14. The door holders are fitted with arms that extend inward. These arms
are magnetically held in place by a magnet block between the door holders in closed position.
85
ggartonewaygear
60N l
Of
Figure B.14: Concept no. 15. A cog wheel is placed in contact with the belt. Another one-way cogwheel
is in contact wit the first cog wheel. This one-way wheel allows movement in the closing direction, but
the opposite direction. To turn in the opening direction, the one-way wheel has to dislodged from the
first wheel by applying a force. When this force is reached the one-way wheel is not in contact anymore
and movement in the opening direction is free.
oonwMhsqg
3OhewayEoioqBz.y
bearings
E
many
bearings
Figure B.15: Concept no. 16. The pulley wheel is replaced with a another pulley wheel. This wheel has
two two-way bearings. They allow rotation in opposite directions. The bearing allowing movement in
the opening direction requires a force to activate. Some kind of force driven clutch will make it connect
and allow rotation. This way, the wheel can rotate freely in the closing direction but it requires a force
to rotate in the opening direction.
86
Figure B.16: Concept no. 17. A concept based upon Figure 5.3. The V-shaped catch turns around its
axis and it requires a force to rotate. Pins or knobs are attached to the rail. The pins or knobs are caught
in the catch and hinder movement without rotation of the catch. Since rotation requires force, it hinders
movement sideways until a certain force is applied.
geass gmo
Figure B.17: Concept no. 18. Suckers are attached to the door holders. They attach to a surface placed
between the holders when the doors are in closed position. This creates a vacuum. A force is required
to separate the suckers from the surface.
87
a
Figure B.18: Concept no. 19. A hook. The hook can move over a knob without much resistance in
one direction but movement is hindered in the other direction. To move in this restricted direction, the
hooks need to be lifted.
easy
dosing
hard
VV
Ins
Figure B.19: Concept no. 20. A catch, with a resting position that is always downward. It is placed in
the door holder’s path of movement. When the door holder pushes the catch in the closing direction,
the catch lifts up without resistance. When the holder has passed the catch, the catch falls down to its
resting position. To rotate the catch in the opening direction, a force is required. The door holder will
need to apply this force to the catch in order to pass it.
88
weight
now
f
ON l
Figure B.20: Concept no. 21. Inspired by a mechanism shown in the film Mechanical Principles (Steiner,
1931). A ratchet is held in place by a weight. The ratchet is moved by an arm that is activated by the
door holder. In order to move it has to rotate the ratchet. Due to the weight, it requires a force to rotate
the ratchet. Once the door holder has passed the arm, it falls back into its original position with the help
of a one-way joint on the tip.
es
Figure B.21: Concept no. 22. Concept inspires by an ellipsograph (Gerbert, 1978, p. L25). The door
holder pushes on a block that is connected to a load. To lift the block, it requires a force to move the
load.
89
a
Figure B.22: Concept no. 23. An implementation of the Geneva mechanism (Gerbert, 1978, p. L21).
The orange wheel rotates with a resistance in one direction and freely in the other direction. The blue
wheel is not rotating but is mounted on the door holder. In order for the knob on the blue wheel to
move past the orange wheel, it has to rotate the orange wheel. This will require a force in the opening
direction, but no force in the closing direction.
90
Die
Baba
Figure B.23: Concept no. 24. This is a combination of concept no. 1, 6 and 13. Arms are mounted on
the door holders and a lockbox is placed in the middle of the rail. The arms are fastened in the lockbox.
This is done either by magnets or by a mechanism similar to Figure B.1, Figure B.5. The arms could
also be locked with a separate mechanism. This mechanism can withstand stronger forces but requires
manual locking and unlocking. This is for break-in protection.
91
B.2 Sketches for first concept development
ftp.sitifiaotned

Doon

golden Bemnedguable
T L

contraction

Spring Spring

III

1 1

From

above
ago
Figure B.24: Concept no. 7.2. An evolution of concept no. 7. The bump (orange part) is made out of
a flexible, bendable piece of metal. It is activated and deactivated by the force from the door holder.
When activated it is pulled together by a spring which contracts and pushes up the bump. To flatten it
out and to move over it, the spring needs to be extended again. This is done by the required force from
the door holder.
92
it
Yuen
EE
II Loaded
t k
Figure B.25: Concept no. 8.2. An evolution of concept no. 8. The catch’s (orange part) activation is
described. A rotating, spring loaded wheel is activated by the release of a hook that keeps the rotating
wheel in place. When the door holder pushes the hook, it moves and releases the wheel, which then
rotates and the catch is brought down. To reattach the catch again it needs to be pulled back by a force
of 60N on the catch. When it reaches the neutral position, the hook slips back into position and keeps
the catch up, allowing the door holder to move freely in the opening direction again.
93
opening
coins
µ easy
Door
YET Yohannan
no force to move
Requires
q
Requires 6ON to more
Ed
Figure B.26: Concept no. 20.2. Evolution of concept no. 20. The catch now acts upon a small rise
or knob on top of the door holder. This to decrease the time that the catch is in contact with the door
holder.
94

Resistance

aging

big

f way

one

fyt
9 joint

d

Door
y

holder

ifeng.to

f
e
as
c surmounted
g II
Effie's.z
Figure B.27: Concept no. 21.2. Evolution of concept no 21. The arm now connects to the door holder
with some kind of springing insertion. This to prevent any backlash when the holder has passed the arm
and it returns to position.
95
2
hand
easy 1
go
Figure B.28: Concept no. 23.2. An evolution of concept no.23. The orange wheel in Figure B.22 have
been replaced with only one track. This tracks rotates back and forth with the motion of the knob. It
rotates with a resistance in one way and freely in the other. The knob is placed on the door holder.
96
B.3 Sketches for second concept development
brakes brakes
t.IOBEFshaft
when
Sideview
frontview
brakes
2 wne.ee
frontwiew
ft
FIL
Top view
Brine
the wheel
Aetyou
Figure B.29: Concept no. 4.2. An evolution of concept no. 4. Adjustments for real door holder design
has been made. There are two types of holders, long and short. 1. This picture shows the solution for
a long door holder. A brake is placed so that the top of the wheel is in contact with it which generates
a friction force and thereby brakes the wheel. 2. Solution for a short door holder. The short holder
have no space on the top for a brake so a different solution has been generated. The brake applies force
on the side of the wheel. The wheel is wedged in 97 between two brakes by the closing force, generating
friction force.
Torsion Spring
EE me
t.IO
Reset tool ToitTodo took'pushfroantubpamp
the bar
Figure B.30: Concept 8.3. An evolution of concept no. 8.2. The main working principle with the hatch
is left untouched. The rotating wheel is loaded with a torsion spring that applies the hold force. A self
reset has also been added. The reset is a second bump on the front of the door holder. This bump lifts
up the catch if the catch should be down when holder is approaching from the closing side. The bump
will then lift up the catch in the same way the back bump does during normal operation.
98
Free wheel
gear
EE
freewheel
em
N
Gyo
of
Figure B.31: Concept no: 20.3. An evolution of concept no. 20.2. The catch was switched up for a
cogwheel and a gear rack. The cogwheel is a freewheel that rotates freely in one direction, but is spring
loaded so that it requires a force to rotate the other way. The gear rack is attached to the door holder
and it has to rotate the cogwheel in order to pass it. This change in the concept may seem large, but is
pretty much the same. The main change is the form of the catch essentially. In concept 20.2 it was a
catch and now it has the form of a wheel. The main function of the concept is still the same.
99
torsion spring
µ 60N
to move
5
free wheel
k7
Figure B.32: Concept 23.3. An evolution of concept no. 23.2. The concept now features a full Geneva
mechanism. The wheel is spring loaded and rotates freely in one direction. The ball is mounted on the
door holder and rotates the wheel when it passes. To rotate back it tightens the spring. The spring will
rotate the wheel back when released, thus the need for a full Geneva mechanism wheel instead of just
one track.
100
took
TIFFJoong on
IDF
II g
FIFI
o a
Figure B.33: Concept 24.2. An evolution of concept no. 24, arms are mounted on each door holder and
the lock box is placed in the middle of the door. The arms connect with the box when the door is closed.
The connection is made by either magnets or in the same way as concept no. 1 or no. 6. The arms can
also be locked completely in the box via a different mechanism in the box. This way of locking is meant
to substitute today’s nighttime burglary protection lock.
101
Appendix C Planning and workload
C.1 Time schedule
102
103
Figure C.1: The originally planned time schedule. The lineup was done before the project started.
Figure C.2: The actual time schedule. The original time schedule was updated along the way to match what och when things did actually happen.
104
C.2 Distribution of work
An equal amount of work was done throughout this project. All parts was done together
as a team and all decisions where made together.
105

Hold Force For Sliding Door

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hold Force For Sliding Door

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Options for Mechanical

Hold Force for Sliding Doors

Mikaela Albertsson and Jens Thieme Almkvist

Copyright © 2019 Mikaela Albertsson and Jens Thieme Almkvist

Subject: Product Development (MMKM05)

Lund, January 2019

Appendix A Measurement data 76

Appendix B Concept art 79

1.2 Problem description

2.1 Sliding door definition and working principle

Figure 2.1: Picture of an automatic sliding door from ASSA ABLOY.

Table 2.1: The states in the state machine.

where Mt is the torque developed by the motor.

3.1 Ulrich and Eppinger

4.1 Data collection

4.1.1 Specifications from ASSA ABLOY

Metric Unit Min.value Max.value

4.1.2 Tests and measurements

Hold force setting[ N] Measured data [ N]

Hold force setting[ N] Mean Value [ N]

4.1.3 Legal requirements

Small 0,590 2,362 5,313

Location Motor Timespan HF=10 HF=20 HF=30 HF=40 HF=50 HF=60

ICA Small 1 years 2,322 9,286 20,894

4.3 Target specifications

Metric no. Metric Importance Unit

4.3.1 Benchmarking - information about the competition

After researching competitors’ available product information, no information on how they

4.3.2 Ideal and marginally acceptable target values

No. Metric Unit Ideal Value Marginal values

1 Force applied N 0 –60 30 –70

5.1 Generating concepts

5.1.1 Similar solutions

5.2.1 Concept screening

No. Criterion Weight Explanation

1 Hold force 5 1: Hold force is applied. -1: No hold force.

No. Criterion Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

5.2.3 Concept selection

No. Criterion Weight Explanation

1 Lifetime 5 5: Lasts intended lifetime, easy to repair. 3: Lasts, hard to

No. Criterion Weight 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 15 20 21 23 24

5.2.5 Final concept selection

No. Criterion Weight Explanation

1 Feasibility 5 5: 100% doable. 3: Some uncertainties on how to do. 0: No doable

No. Criterion Weight 4 8 24 25

Total 3,8 3,7 4,6 4,2

6.1 Proof of concept

6.1.1 Concept number 4

6.1.2 Concept number 24

Closed snap connection

Open snap connection

Figure 6.8: The holder for the magnets in a magnetic connection.

6.1.4 Discussion and continued development

6.2 Developing concept no. 24

6.3 Function of concept no. 24

7.1 Suggested solution

• Concept number 4, brake on wheel

7.2 Comparison with target specifications

No. Metric Unit Ideal Value Marginal values Correspondence

1 Force applied N 0 –60 30 –70 Yes

Housing HDPE 72 · 10− 6 950 76 · 106 5, 20 · 10− 3

7.3 Future Work

Table A.1: Push force measurements data from testing.