86 | WWW.ELEVATOR-WORLD.COM | September 2007
Engineering
Jörg Lauener started
working with Schindler
Switzerland in R&D on lift
drive systems in 1960. He
then joined Brown Boveri
& Cie (now ABB) in
Switzerland and later in
Sydney
. Lauener spent two
years as a project engineer
with NABALCO in Gove, Australia and rejoined
Schindler in Hong Kong in 1972. He served as
general manager in Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea
and Vietnam. Lauener holds a degree in Electrical
Engineering.
This article highlights the attributes
of destination control with regard to
the resulting traffic performance and,
in the absence of a traffic-simulation
program, offers a shortcut method that
allows assessment of the up-peak
traffic performance using conven-
tional traffic-analysis software to
obtain results. It is a rudimentary but
useful tool, especially during build-
ing-core design, where it quickly
displays a suitable layout of the
vertical-transportation system, along
with options and comparisons. Gen-
erally, stage one of a building’s design
is to determine the core layout before
going any further by positioning and
fixing the number of required eleva-
tor shafts, the zoning of elevators, the
location of machine rooms, and sky
lobbies and escalators (if applicable).
However, there are so many differ-
ent design options available on the
market that for larger projects, it
would be prudent to get an equipment
update from the major elevator sup-
pliers and select the most suitable of
all possible layout options before
settling on the final tender specifica-
tion. At the early design stage
, the
main criterion would be to arrive at a
vertical-transportation arrangement
that can achieve the required traffic
performance with minimal hardware
and space requirements. Other infor
-
mation such as the track record of an
elevator contractor, the installation
contract price, the running cost con-
sidering the cost of maintenance
,
loss in revenue for space taken up
by the system and cost of electric
power
, etc. will have to be taken into
consideration at the tender evalua
-
tion stage.
The application of different options
also changes with the type of build-
ing (residential, office, hotel, mixed
purpose, special purpose), and differ-
ent elevator suppliers can offer dif-
ferent solutions. Any one of them
could entail:
◆
Elevators, escalators or moving walks
◆ Passenger, service, goods or other
purpose elevators
◆ Single zoning or sub-zoning
◆ Direct elevatoring from the main
entrance (including sky lobbies)
fed by express elevators from the
main entrance
◆ Up/down elevatoring of local ele-
vator groups from sky lobbies
◆ Single-deck, double-deck or triple-
deck elevators
◆ Elevators with or without machine
rooms
◆ Destination control or conventional
control
◆ Elevators of the same group serving
different floors
◆ Handicapped requirements
◆ Special access and security require-
ments, etc.
However, this article will focus on
describing a simple method that can
determine the up-peak traffic perform-
ance of elevators with destination
group control (DGC), which usually
shows that the same performance can
be achieved with a reduced number of
elevators compared to the number of
units of a conventional group control
(CGC). (Since not all elevator suppliers
offer destination control, tender speci
-
fications often allow for both types
of control.)
DGC Vs. CGC
During the design stage of a build
-
ing,
a speedy answer to the traffic
Traffic Performance of Elevators
with Destination Control
by Jörg Lauener
Continued
EW Online
The late Dr. Joris Schroeder first wrote about
“Destination Dispatching” in July 1985. Five
years later, Schindler’s Miconic 10
®
was
introducted and, in 1996, reviewed by EW
Correspondent Hans Arens. Visit this month’s
EW Online Extras at www.elevator-world.com
for the full text of both articles.