This paper attempts to understand the reasons for the difference in the value of the round trip time between calculation and simulation. It is posited the main reason for the difference is the combination of two factors: the restricted car capacity and the randomness in the behavior of the elevator traffic system, thus leading to a reduced effective car loading (effectively based on a smaller number of passengers in the car).
There are three sources of randomness in the behavior of the system: the randomness of the passenger destinations (thus making the value of the round trip time a random variable), the randomness of the passenger arrival (driven by a Poisson passenger arrival model), and the effect of elevator bunching (thus making the value of the interval a random variable).
Using a MATLAB-based simulator, the value of the round trip time is plotted against the system loading level for the case of a single entrance and incoming traffic only. Different conditions are simulated, including constant and random passenger arrivals, as well as queues-allowed and queues-not-allowed conditions. Varying these conditions provides an essential insight into the variation of the round trip time and the reasons for it. The effect of the number of passengers boarding the elevator on the value of the round trip time (and thus on the value of the system handling capacity) is investigated in more detail.
Al-SharifLAbu AlqumsanAMHammoudehAT. Methods for evaluating elevator RTT. Elevator World2014; 62(12): 62–66.
2.
CIBSE (Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers). CIBSE Guide D: transportation systems in buildings. 5th ed.London: Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers, 2015.
3.
BarneyGCAl-SharifL. Elevator traffic handbook: theory and practice. 2nd ed.Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge, 2016.
4.
Al-SharifL. The effect of multiple entrances on the elevator round trip time under up-peak traffic. Math Comput Model2010; 52: 545–555.
5.
Al-SharifLAbu AlqumsanAMKhaleelR. Derivation of a universal elevator round trip time formula under incoming traffic with stepwise verification. Build Serv Eng Res Technol2014; 35: 198–213.
6.
RoschierNRKaakinenMJ. New formulae for elevator round trip time calculations. Elevator World (Mobile, AL, USA) (supplement) 1978; 26: 1–16.
7.
PetersRD. Lift traffic analysis: Formulae for the general case. Build Serv Eng Res Technol1990; 11: 65–67.
8.
Al-SharifLAbu AlqumsanAM. Stepwise derivation and verification of a universal elevator round trip time formula for general traffic conditions. Build Serv Eng Res Technol2015; 36: 311–330.
9.
KhaleelRAl-SharifLSalahatM. Derivation of a universal elevator round trip time formula under uppeak traffic for the case of four special conditions. Lift Rep2013; 39: 17–29.
10.
Abu-Al-Hayja’aHRYounesMO. The direct use of Markov chains to evaluate the elevator round trip time under incoming traffic and multiple entrances. Final Year Project, Mechatronics Engineering Department, The University of Jordan, 2012/2013.
11.
Al-SharifLAlgzawiHSHammodehAT. The use of the Markov chain Monte Carlo method in deriving the elevator round trip time under incoming traffic conditions and a single entrance. Adv Model Optim2013; 15: 689–695.
12.
Al-SharifLHammoudehA. Evaluating the elevator round trip time for multiple entrances and incoming traffic conditions using Markov chain Monte Carlo. Int J Ind Syst Eng2014; 18: 51–64.
13.
Al-SharifLAldahiyatHMAlkurdiLM. The use of Monte Carlo simulation in evaluating the elevator round trip time under up-peak traffic conditions and conventional group control. Build Serv Eng Res Technol2012; 33: 319–338.
14.
Al-SharifLAbdel AalOFAbu AlqumsanAM. Evaluating the elevator passenger average travelling time under incoming traffic conditions using analytical formulae and the Monte Carlo method. Elevator World2013; 61(6): 110–123.
15.
PetersR. The application of simulation to traffic design and dispatcher testing. In: proceedings of the 3rd symposium on lift and escalator technologies, The University of Northampton, Northampton, UK, 26–27 September 2013, Vol., pp.128–139. Northampton, Uk: The University of Northampton and the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE).
16.
SiikonenML. Elevator traffic simulation. Simulation1993; 61: 257–267.
17.
ChristyT. The impact of traffic variations on elevator performance. Elevator Technol2012; 19: 313–321.
18.
Al-SharifLAbu AlqumsanAMGhanemW. Modelling of elevator traffic systems using queuing theory. In: 4th symposium on lift and escalator technologies, University of Northampton, UK, 25–26 September 2014, Vol. 4, pp.9–18. Northampton, UK: The University of Northampton and the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE).
19.
JappsenHRiekeO. Difficulties in comparing the results of lift-traffic simulations. Elevator Technol2012; 19: 90–105.
20.
HakonenHSiikonenML. Elevator traffic simulation procedure. Elevator Technol2008; 17: 131–141.
21.
FinschiL. State-of-the-art traffic analyses. Elevator Technol2010; 18: 106–115.
22.
SiikonenMLSusiTHakonenH. Passenger traffic flow simulation in tall buildings. In: IFHS international conference on multi-purpose high-rise towers and tall buildings, 7–10 November 2000. Madrid, Spain: International Federation of High Rise Structures.
23.
Al-AdemMD. Discrete event simulation of multi-car elevator systems. Final Year Graduation Project, Mechatronics Engineering Department, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan, May2012.
24.
Peters Research Ltd. Elevate: elevator traffic analysis & simulation software, getting started. Version 8, November2010.
25.
GaverDPPowellBA. Variability in round-trip times for an elevator car during up-peak. Transp Sci1971; 5: 169–179.
26.
AlexandrisNABarneyGCHarrisCJ. Multi-car lift system analysis and design. Appl Math Model1979; 3: 269–274.
27.
AlexandrisNABarneyGCHarrisCJ. Derivation of the mean highest reversal floor and expected number of stops in lift systems. Appl Math Model1979; 3: 275–279.
28.
AlexandrisNAHarrisCJBarneyGC. Evaluation of the handling capacity of multi-car lift systems. Appl Math Model1981; 5: 49–52.
29.
AlexandrisNA. Mean highest reversal floor and expected number of stops in lift-stairs service systems of multi-level buildings. Appl Math Model1986; 10: 139–143.
30.
Al-SharifLAl-AdemMD. The current practice of lift traffic design using calculation and simulation. Build Serv Eng Res Technol2014; 35: 438–445.
31.
Al-SharifL. Bunching in lifts: why does bunching in lifts increase waiting time?Elevator World (Mobile, AL, USA)1996; 44(11): 75–77.
32.
Al-SharifL. Bunching in lift systems. Elevator Technol1993; 5: 88–97.
33.
BarneyGC. Uppeak revisited. Elevator Technol1992; 4: 39–47.
34.
BarneyGC. Uppeak, down peak and interfloor performance revisited. Elevator Technol1998; 9: 31–40.
35.
Al-SharifLHamdanJHusseinM. Establishing the upper performance limit of destination elevator group control using idealised optimal benchmarks. Build Serv Eng Res Technol, 2015; 36: 546–566.
36.
Al-SharifLAbu AlqumsanAMAbdel AalOF. Automated optimal design methodology of elevator systems using rules and graphical methods (the HARint plane). Build Serv Eng Res Technol2013; 34: 275–293.
37.
Al-SharifLAbdel AalOFAbu AlqumsanAM. The HARint Space: a methodology for compliant elevator traffic designs. Build Serv Eng Res Technol2015; 36: 34–50.
38.
Al-SharifLSeeleyC. The effect of the building population and the number of floors on the vertical transportation design of low and medium rise buildings. Build Serv Eng Res Technol2010; 31: 207–220.
