The present invention relates to the field of door frames and, in particular, to a modified entry door frame profile and mating entry door strike frame reinforcement assembly that improves the ability of the strike frame and the door to resist forced entry.
Forced entry into residences and commercial buildings is, unfortunately, an all too common occurrence. Home invasions have occurred that have resulted in not only loss of property but also serious injuries and even death to the occupants. The ability of a typical residential front entry door and door frame to resist a forced entry is limited due to the small volume of wood or plastic composite (typically 0.75″×0.5″×1″) that the throw bolt of the deadbolt has to retain it in the door frame. The thin stamped metal pieces mounted on the face of the frame that surround the deadbolt and latch in a typical entry door hardware system are more decorative than protective. As such, the need for improved resistance to forced entry is well known, and prior art exists that attempts to address this need.
Patents such as Blankenship, U.S. Pat. No. 4,858,384, Long, U.S. Pat. No. 5,566,509, Canerdy, Jr., U.S. Pat. No. 7,946,635 B2, Anderson, U.S. Pat. No. 8,132,832 B2, Jones, et. al. U.S. Pat. No. 8,938,915 B2 and others present door strike frame reinforcements in the form of a shaped metal strip with cutouts or punch outs for the throw bolt and latch. The shaped strip mounts onto the rabbeted face portion of an existing door strike frame, between the edge of the door containing the lock set and the face of the thinner part of the door frame, to reinforce it. The shaped strip is mounted with a number of long wood screws that secure the strip to the face of the door frame and potentially into the framing in the surrounding wall. The reinforcement does not require additional machining of the door frame but as a result the gap between the edge of the door and the door frame is reduced and could potentially interfere with the normal closure of the door. The strip would also be visible and would detract from the appearance of the door frame.
Patents such as Knight, U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,457 B1 and others describe systems that have significant sections of the door frame machined away and replaced by a shaped metal bar with openings for the latch and throw bolt. The bar is then secured through the remaining thickness of the door frame and into the framing in the surrounding wall. The machining required to prepare the door frame for installation of the bar is extensive and would be very difficult to perform without specialized templates or other purpose-built fixtures. As such, fitting this system to an existing door frame would be very difficult to accomplish at the location of a home using the typical hand tools available during home construction or carried by a contractor trying to fit the system to an existing home.
Patents and applications such as Young, U.S. Pat. No. 7,467,818 B2, Johnson, US 2015/0252589 A1 and others describe systems that include shaped sheet metal pieces which are attached to be back of the door frame and wrap around the rabbeted edge of the door frame and over part of the face of the door frame in the area where the deadbolt is located. The sheet metal pieces are then secured with screws into the frame and/or the adjacent wall structure. The reinforcement requires little or no machining of the door frame, but as a result the gap between the edge of the door and the frame is reduced and could potentially interfere with the normal closure of the door. The sheet metal pieces would also be visible and would detract from the appearance of the door frame.
Patents such as Simpson, U.S. Pat. No. 5,934,024, Hudson, U.S. Pat. No. 6,082,049, Childress, U.S. Pat. No. 6,691,466 B1 and others describe systems that are mounted on the back face of the frame or are inserted into the edge or face of the rabbeted area of the frame in the area where the deadbolt is mounted. These systems all require some specialized machining of the door frame to be accomplished to allow them to be secured in a way that the system will mostly be hidden from view.
Patents such as Mayer, Jr., U.S. Pat. No. 6,178,700 B1, Olberding et. al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,134,246 B1 and others describe systems that are mounted between the back of the door frame and the surrounding wall structure. These systems are quite large in size, complex and would require the installer to accurately place and secure each component with numerous fasteners to mount them correctly.
In view of the foregoing disadvantages and limitations found in the prior art for the reinforcement of entry door frames, there is need for an improved method or system.
The embodiments disclosed and claimed herein comprise components of reinforcement assemblies having various shapes and sizes which are designed and adapted for installation on the back of one leg, specifically the strike side leg, of a door frame assembly, whether during factory manufacture or field installation. They are all designed to improve the impact resistance of a door installed in the reinforced frames of various types, when impact force is applied to a door which is closed and locked with a latch and deadbolt to the reinforced strike side frame leg. Such impacts are typically applied to an area of the door adjacent to the frame leg during an attempted forced entry or similar event. Therefore, although the most basic embodiments comprise shaped plates as described below, preferably in combination with a U-shaped bar as also described, the claimed embodiments range from assemblies comprising one or two of such shaped plates up to complete reinforced door frames and pre-hung doors including such frames. Thus, much of the disclosure below (including examples) will necessarily concern the effects of the reinforced frames on the impact resistance of the door, lock and deadbolt when installed in such reinforced frames.
The purpose of the door frame profile and reinforcement assembly disclosed below is to improve the ability of the door and door frame entry system to resist the impact of an intruder attempting to force entry. Improved resistance to forced entry is achieved by providing a shaped plate attached to the back of the door frame that the throw bolt of the door deadbolt contacts or, preferably, two shaped plates so both the throw bolt and latch of the door lockset come in contact with the plates when the door is closed and the deadbolt and lock are in their locked position. The shaped plate or plates are then preferably secured to a shaped bar that is located in and secured within a shaped slot (rabbet) in the back of the door frame or simply secured directly within a shaped slot (rabbet) in the back of the door frame without the benefit of the shaped bar.
The improved entry door frame reinforcement assembly preferably comprises two main components. The first component is a U-shaped bar that seats into and is secured within a shaped slot in the back of the door frame that is oriented parallel to the length of the door frame. The second component is a shaped plate that attaches to the shaped bar and the back of the door frame and is oriented parallel to the back of the door frame in the location of the door lock and/or deadbolt to be reinforced. The system can utilize one or, preferably, two of the shaped plates so that the throw bolt of the deadbolt and latch of the door lock are both reinforced. The purpose of the U-shaped bar is to reinforce and better secure the shaped plate or plates if the door frame is constructed of a soft or low strength wood or composite. A set of threaded (or other mechanical) fasteners designed to securely connect the pieces to the back of the door frame directly and indirectly into the surrounding wall framing is also part of the assembly. The minimum length of a U-shaped bar that can secure two shaped plates needs to be greater than about 9″ as the standard distances between the center lines of the lock and deadbolt are either 5.5″ or 6″. The maximum length of the U-shaped bar is expected to be about 24″, as testing has shown shorter bar lengths provide sufficient reinforcement. However, the true maximum length of the U-shaped bar could be as long as the actual frame leg, which is typically 81″ to 97″ in length.
The components of the above system can be cast, stamped, bent, formed, molded, machined or otherwise fabricated from metals or other materials that have sufficient structural strength to endure the loads placed on them during a forced entry attempt. For instance, sheet steel, including various alloys, brass, bronze and high strength polymeric composites can be used.
The shaped slot in the back of the door frame can be easily incorporated into the door frame when it is produced by either moulding (wooden door frame) or extrusion (plastic composite door frame). As the location of the slot is on the back of the door frame and does not alter the fit, form or function of the door frame, having this become the standard profile for door frames is feasible. The adoption of this as the standard profile would actually reduce the cost of manufacture for door frame producers as it would reduce the material content of extruded door frames and provide additional sawdust revenue for wood door frame producers. The machining required to cut the shaped slot into the back of an existing door frame can be accomplished with the use of a small table saw fitted with a dado saw blade set. As such, an existing strike frame leg could be modified to receive the security strike at a typical job site.
Door frames come in a range of widths (typically 4.5″ to 12″), as they must match the overall thickness of the exterior wall construction used. The change in door frame width is accomplished by altering only the width of the thicker portion of the door frame as the thinner rabbeted portion is kept the same width to match the door thickness. As the location of the shaped slot is a set distance from the thin rabbeted edge of the door frame, changes in the overall width of the door frame have no impact on the fit of the security strike system, so one size of shaped plate and bar will work for a range of door frame widths.
The U-shaped bar is shaped to fit into and be secured within the shaped slot in the back of the door frame. The shaped bar has a cross-sectional shape and thickness resembling a broad U-shape or channel iron. When combined with the strength of the material chosen, the resulting combination will resist deformation or fracture due to being subjected to impact loading. The length of the shaped bar is sufficient, with enough fastening points, to spread the impact loads along enough length of the door frame to prevent the wooden or composite frame from failing and giving way, or to minimize the risk of such failure.
The shaped plate is shaped to fit within and be secured to the shaped bar and secured by fasteners into the door frame. The shaped plate is of a material and thickness sufficient to resist deformation or fracture due to impact loads. The shaped plate has an opening for the latch or throw bolt to pass through and the opening has a perpendicular rectangular flange that extends into the opening drilled into the door frame for the latch and/or throw bolt. This flange provides for more of the length of the latch or throw bolt to make contact with and be supported by the shaped plate. The shaped plate is also fitted with two slots that are located, oriented and sized so that wood screws of sufficient length can be driven through the rabbeted face of the door frame, pass through these slots and then into the wall framing that surrounds the door entry. The locations of the slots align with the area of the rabbet next to the slot cut to hold the weatherstrip so that the heads of the fasteners will be covered by the weatherstrip after it is installed, and thus the presence of these fasteners is hidden from view. As with the shaped bar, the length of the shaped plate(s) should be sufficient to spread impact loads along enough length of the door frame to minimize the risk of failure under impact.
Not all applications may require that the combination of the U-shaped bar and shaped plate be used to achieve the required resistance to forced entry (e.g., when the door frame is composed of quality hardwood as opposed to low grade softwood). For these applications, the shaped bar could be eliminated and the shaped plate secured directly into the shaped slot in the door frame. Another alternative is that the width of the shaped slot can be reduced and the portion of the shaped plate that fits within the shaped slot can be reduced to a simple flange and the locations of the fasteners for the shaped plate relocated.
At its simplest, an embodiment shown in
The embodiment shown in
The embodiments shown can be added to reinforce an existing door and frame assembly by removing the existing door and entry frame, cutting the slot required in the back of the strike side frame leg, installing the shaped bar and plate(s) and reinstalling the now reinforced door and frame assembly. For existing doors that have been subject to forced entry damage, the embodiment and a replacement frame leg can be utilized to both repair and reinforce the existing door and frame assembly. The damaged door and frame assembly would be removed, the damaged/broken strike side frame leg removed, a new replacement leg with the machined slot and the embodiment mounted would be attached to complete the door and frame assembly and then the repaired and reinforced door and frame assembly reinstalled. Finally, a strike side frame leg with the machined slot and the embodiment attached can be utilized with a door and other frame components to produce a reinforced pre-hung door unit for use in new construction or when forced entry damage or other reasons prevent the existing door and frame assembly from being reused. Such a pre-hung door assembly would comprise a door frame comprising two legs, header and sill, with reinforcement assemblies for the latch and/or throw bolt installed in the latch-side leg and the door hung by hinges on the opposite leg.
As a result, some known deficiencies of the current entry door frame reinforcing assemblies are addressed and overcome.
The invention will be better understood and aspects other than those set forth above will become apparent when consideration is given to the following detailed description, the appended claims and drawings. The same numerals are used to designate like components in these figures. Such description makes reference to the annexed drawing wherein:
In general, the following description adopts a terrestrial frame of reference, in which the bottom of a component is considered to be the side nearest the floor or earth when in normal use, and the top being the side opposite and facing upward. The term “face” is used to identify the portion of the door frame that is in closest proximity to the door and is visible after installation. The term “back” is used to identify the reverse portion of the door frame that is in closest proximity to the surrounding wall and its internal framing and is not visible after installation. The term “and/or” is used in the conventional sense, in which “A and/or B” indicates that A or B, or both, may be present.
A variety of typical mechanical fasteners can be used to assemble the components of the system embodiments described below, including without limitation nails, staples of various types, machine screws and bolts, wood and sheet metal screws, dowels and pins of various sorts. Persons skilled in the art will be well prepared to use the mechanical fasteners provided with the assembly or to provide or substitute fasteners of their own choices.
With reference to
With reference to
With reference to
With reference to
With reference to
With reference to
With reference to
With reference to
With reference to
The operation of certain disclosed embodiments will be further illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1—A U-shaped bar and shaped plate were fabricated by cutting and bending 16-gage galvanized sheet steel (ASTM A653 CS Type B) into the shapes depicted in
Example 2—A U-shaped bar and shaped plate were fabricated by cutting and bending 16-gage galvanized sheet steel (ASTM A653 CS Type B) into the shapes depicted in
Published testing by Kikgard, another commercially available door reinforcement product, showed that a typical softwood door frame without reinforcement will break and allow the door to be forced open at the lowest impact level (80 Joules) so that it will fail to achieve even the lowest Grade 10 performance level. With the addition of the U-shaped bar and the shaped plate describe above, the ability of the pine door frame to resist the impact of forced entry was significantly improved so that the maximum amount of impact that the door can be subjected to without failure was determined by the strength of the lockset used, as the reinforced frame did not fail in testing.
In the foregoing description, certain terms have been used for brevity, clarity and understanding. All equivalent relationships to those illustrated in the drawings and described in the preferred embodiment are to be encompassed by this present invention to produce the intended results. It is also to be understood that the following claims are intended to cover all of the generic and specific features of the invention herein described, and all statements of the scope of the invention which, as a matter of language, might be said to fall therebetween.
This application claims the benefit of my provisional application DWMEV-6P, U.S. Ser. No. 62/762,434, for “ENTRY DOOR FRAME REINFORCEMENT ASSEMBLY,” filed May 5, 2018.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3271063 | Garrett | Sep 1966 | A |
3918207 | Aliotta | Nov 1975 | A |
4057275 | La Beaud | Nov 1977 | A |
4171836 | St. Aubin | Oct 1979 | A |
4171837 | McRoy | Oct 1979 | A |
4174862 | Shane | Nov 1979 | A |
4195870 | Percoco | Apr 1980 | A |
4281480 | Wendt | Aug 1981 | A |
4295299 | Nelson | Oct 1981 | A |
4345787 | Dabrowski | Aug 1982 | A |
4416087 | Ghaiak | Nov 1983 | A |
4717185 | Hartley | Jan 1988 | A |
4770452 | Petree, Jr. | Sep 1988 | A |
4854621 | Baldwin | Aug 1989 | A |
4858384 | Blankenship | Aug 1989 | A |
4862658 | Barker | Sep 1989 | A |
4865370 | Francis | Sep 1989 | A |
4993764 | Barker | Feb 1991 | A |
5070650 | Anderson | Dec 1991 | A |
5076626 | Tiddy et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5127690 | Kim | Jul 1992 | A |
5154461 | Prescott | Oct 1992 | A |
5241790 | Schimpf | Sep 1993 | A |
D354670 | Simon | Jan 1995 | S |
5474347 | Vigneault et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5556509 | Long | Oct 1996 | A |
5570917 | Cutrer | Nov 1996 | A |
5581948 | Simonsen | Dec 1996 | A |
5836628 | Beier | Nov 1998 | A |
5934024 | Simpson | Aug 1999 | A |
6082049 | Hudson | Jul 2000 | A |
6178700 | Mayer, Jr. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6418669 | Suter | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6691466 | Childress | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6834897 | Walker | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6857672 | Drew, II | Feb 2005 | B1 |
7134246 | Olberding et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7165793 | Richmond | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7467818 | Young | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7946635 | Canerdy, Jr. | May 2011 | B2 |
8132832 | Anderson | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8510995 | Fulton et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8793936 | Fulton et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8887457 | Knight | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8938915 | Jones et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
20070029823 | Gatrell | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20080202034 | Campbell | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20090077909 | Barthel | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20100115862 | Young | May 2010 | A1 |
20100122502 | Young | May 2010 | A1 |
20100201138 | Sauder | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20120181801 | Willis | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120228887 | McMullen | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20130074414 | Jones | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20140346787 | Martin, Jr. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150013249 | Nielsen | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150252589 | Johnson | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20170159326 | Piston | May 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
107386878 | May 2018 | CN |
199 38 547 | Jan 2001 | DE |
202008005087 | Jul 2008 | DE |
2523171 | Aug 2015 | GB |
Entry |
---|
Global Security Experts Inc., “Door Jamb Reinforcement Systems vs. Security Door . . . ” viewed Jun. 7, 2018, dates unknown. |
PRweb, Jordan Frankel, “Global Security Experts Inc. Invention contest . . . ” viewed Jun. 8, 2018, date unknown. |
Front door Security Devices & Hardware, “Best Door Reinforcement Kit 208,” viewed Jun. 8, 2018, date(s) unknown. |
ASTM Intl., ASTM F476-14, “Standard Test Methods for Security of Swinging Door Asemblies,” 2014, West Conshohocken, PA. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62762434 | May 2018 | US |