![]() If every lift serves every floor, the taller the building, the higher the proportion of the building is taken by lifts.įigure 1 Example four rise arrangement for sixty floor office building If a lift serves too many floors, the number of stops and transit time for passengers at higher floors becomes intolerable. 2 Single deck liftsĪccording to the CIBSE Guide a building with sixty occupied floors would typically be served by 4 rises, see Figure 1. After this initial planning stage, most designers would then use simulation to assess the application of destination control and to consider lunch time traffic. The results are indicative only, as designs which are more core efficient will allow more people to be accommodated in a building with the same total floor area. Core calculations are based on the core area taken by the lift shaft, and do not include lift lobbies. Design parameters are based on CIBSE Guide D. Apply the general analysis round trip time calculation for single and double deck lifts this assumes conventional control. There will normally be separate goods lifts and firefighting lifts which are not addressed in this paper.įor a first step in traffic analysis design, let us consider an office building with 60 occupied floors and 50 people per floor requiring an uppeak handling capacity of 12% and maximum interval of 30s. This paper discusses the different approaches, together with a core space analysis of alternative solutions for example buildings. Other options including two cars per shaft are available, and rope-less lifts are planned. Al-Sharif et al provide additional rules of thumb for high rise lift planning, also including double deck and shuttle lifts drawn from a range of sources. CIBSE Guide D suggests that it is general practice to serve a maximum of 15–16 floors with a lift or a group of lifts. ![]() In high rise buildings lifts are often arranged in zones. In low rise buildings, there is normally a single lift group which serves every floor. The pros and cons of different approaches are discussed, together with a core space analysis of alternative solutions for example buildings. Often the solution chosen will adopt more than one strategy and technology. Planned rope-less lifts solutions promise significantly more handling capacity per shaft, freeing mega high-rise buildings of the limits imposed by roped lifts. For super high-rise buildings, shuttle lifts expressing people to sky lobbies offer further savings in core space. Solutions with two independently roped cars per shaft achieve a similar handling capacity boost, but with added flexibility. ![]() Double deck lifts, with two cabs serving adjacent floors at the same time, provide greater handing capacity per shaft. To reduce core space, often the first option considered is to divide the lifts into two or more zones. In general, taller buildings need a greater proportion of core space to accommodate the lifts. ![]() Keywords: high-rise, lift, elevator, traffic analysis, calculation, simulation.Ībstract. This paper provides an overview of the different ways of providing lift service to high rise buildings. This web version © Peters Research Ltd 2019. This paper was presented at The 8th Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technology (CIBSE Lifts Group, The University of Northampton and LEIA) (2018).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |