The HARint Space: A methodology for compliant elevator traffic designs

Abstract

A previous paper introduced the concept of the HARint plane, which is a tool to visualise the optimality of an elevator design. This paper extends the concept of the HARint plane to the HARint Space where the complete set of user requirements is used to implement a compliant elevator traffic design. In the HARint Space, the full set of user requirements are considered: the passenger arrival rate (AR%), the target interval (int_tar), the target average travelling time (ATT) and the target average waiting time (AWT). The HARint Space provides an automated methodology in the form of a set of well-defined steps that allow the designer to convert these four user requirements into a compliant elevator traffic design. As with the HARint plane method, the target interval is used in combination with the expected arrival rate (AR%) and the building population, U, in order to find an initial assessment of the number of passengers expected to board the elevator. The target average travelling time is then used to select a suitable elevator speed. This is then used to calculate the round trip time and then select the optimum number of elevators. An iteration is then carried out to find the actual number of passengers, and hence the elevator capacity. A check is then carried out to ensure that the target average waiting time has been met, and if not, then a modification of the design is required (usually by increasing the speed or increasing the number of elevators). While the HARint plane provides the optimum number of elevator cars to achieve the two user requirements, the HARint Space provides the optimum rated speed as well as the optimum number of elevators to meet the four user requirements of arrival rate, target interval, target average waiting time and target average travelling time. An obvious consequence of the introduction of the average travelling time as a user requirement is that the speed becomes an outcome of the HARint Space. The method also triggers a zoning recommendation in cases where the average travelling time cannot be met by varying the speed within reasonable limits.

Practical application: The work in this paper presents a methodical procedure allowing the designer to select the number, speed and capacity of a group of elevators in a building in order to meet four user requirements: Arrival rate, target interval, target passenger waiting time and target passenger travelling time. Following this procedure ensures an optimal design. It also provides the user with a graphical method for visualising the optimality of the design.

Keywords

Elevator lift round trip time interval up peak traffic rule base Monte Carlo simulation average travel time

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al-Sharif

Abu Alqumsan

Abdel Aal

. Automated optimal design methodology of elevator systems using rules and graphical methods (the HARint plane). Build Service Eng Res Technol 2013; 34: 275–293.

Maeda

Komaya

. Revised design calculations of elevator systems. IEEE Int Conference Syst Man and Cybernet 2000; 2: 1041–1046.

CIBSE. CIBSE Guide D: Transportation systems in buildings. 4th ed. Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers, London: UK, 2010.

Barney

. Elevator traffic handbook: theory and practice, London and New York: Spon Press, 2003.

Kavounas GT. Designing an elevator system also for the average waiting time. Elevator World 1993; 41: 100–103.

Barney G. Towards agreed traffic design definitions. Elevator World 2005; 53: 108.

Barney GC. Uppeak revisited. In: Proceedings of Elevcon ’92, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May 1992, pp.39–47.

Barney GC. Uppeak, down peak and interfloor performance revisited. In: Elevator Technology 9, Proceedings of Elevcon ’98, Zurich, Switzerland. International Association of Elevator Engineers, Zurich, Switzerland, October 1998, pp.31–40.

Al-Sharif L, Hamdan J, Jaber Z, et al. The effect of the number of elevators in a group on the upper performance limit of destination group control. Am J Math Manage Sci (submitted February 2014) (under review).

10.

Al-Sharif L, Hamdan J, Hussein M, et al. Establishing the upper performance limit of destination elevator group control using idealised optimal benchmarks (IOB). Build Service Eng Res Technol (submitted March 2014) (under review).

11.

Al-Sharif L, Peters R and Smith R. Elevator energy simulation model. Elevator World 2004; 52(11): 108–111.

12.

Al-Sharif L. Lift energy consumption: general overview (1974–2001). Elevator World 2004; 52(10): 61–67.

13.

Peters

. Lift traffic analysis: Formulae for the general case. Build Service Eng Res Technol 1990; 11: 65–67.

14.

Al-Sharif L, Abu Alqumsan AM and Khaleel R. Derivation of a universal elevator round trip time formula under incoming traffic. Build Service Eng Res Technol 2014; 35(2): 198–213.

15.

Al-Sharif

Dahyat

Al-Kurdi

. The use of Monte Carlo simulation in the calculation of the elevator round trip time under up-peak conditions. Build Service Eng Res Technol 2012; 33: 319–338.

16.

Al-Sharif L and Hammoudeh A. Evaluating the elevator round trip time for multiple entrances and incoming traffic conditions using Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Int J Industrial Syst Eng (IJISE), http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode=ijise (accepted for publication on 4 June 2013).

17.

ATP

Suen

WSM

. New formula for estimating average travel time. Elevatori 2002; 31: 66–70.

18.

Al-Sharif L, Abdel Aal OF and Abu Alqumsan AM. Evaluating the elevator passenger average travelling time under incoming traffic conditions using analytical formulae and the Monte Carlo Method. Elevator World 2013; 61(6): 110–123.