Green Lifts? Vertical Transportation Planning in …download.peters-research.com/cibsegreenlift/peters.pdfDr. Lutfi Al-Sharif Al-Sharif VTC Ltd.,UK Dr. Richard Peters Peters Research

1

1

100 Days of Carbon Clean Up

Greening Your Lifts Wednesday 23rd August 2006

Energy saving strategies

and energy models

Dr. Richard PetersPeters Research Ltd.

© 2006 Peters Research Ltd.All rights reserved.

Green Lifts?

2

Presented by• Dr Richard Peters• BSc Electrical Engineering, EngD Vertical

Transportation• Arup (1987 to 1997)• Peters Research Ltd from 1997• Author of Elevate simulation software• Specialist elevator consultant • Contact on:

[email protected]

3

Vertical Transportation Planning in Buildings

1993 - 1997

Brunel/Surrey University Environmental Technology EngD Programme

sponsored by The Ove Arup Partnership and

The Chartered Institution of BuildingServices Engineers

Richard D PetersBSc CEng MIEE MCIBSE

4

Green Lifts?

5

Green Lifts?

lift systems that deliver good passenger service at an acceptable cost while

incurring minimum environmental impact

What impact does lift have?

6

Life Cycle Analysis

• includes burdens during entire life– resource extraction materials for manufacture– manufacture and installation– use of product– re-cycling and re-use– waste– transportation at all stages

2

7

Lift LCA

RawMaterials

Waste

Energy

Waste

Manufacture,supply and install

Lift systemin use

Strip out

Maintenance andrefurbishment

System boundary

Re-cycle & re-use

Parts

Energy

Waste

8

LCA Results

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

tonn

e

Manufacture, Install In use Maintenace/Refurb Strip out

Non-renewable resources depleted

Waste to landfill

Carbon dioxide emissions

9

EngD Research• elevator traffic and energy simulation

modelling• improving understanding traffic and traffic

analysis can lead to energy savings by avoiding over-design

• introduced the application of simulation models to test energy saving design and control strategies

10

But get the basics right first ..• energy efficient (regenerative) drives and

controls• minimising inertia and other resisting forces• car lighting• accessible stairs

11

Elevator Energy Simulation Model

Dr. Lutfi Al-Sharif Al-Sharif VTC Ltd.,UK

Dr. Richard PetersPeters Research Ltd., UK

Mr. Rory SmithThyssenKrupp Elevator Inc., USA

ELEVCON Istanbul 2004

The 14th International Congress on Vertical Transportation Technologies

12

Let’s not talk about maths behind the modelling

3

13

Basic principles of energy transfer

14

… in an ideal world

Lift going up

15


16


17


18


4

19


20


21


0.1 kWh taken from the system

22


Lift going back down

23


24


5

25


26


27


28


29


0.1 kWh put back into the system

30

A lift does not use energy, it borrows it.


6

31

… in the real world

Lift going up

32


Heat generated by the lift motor

33


noise is also generated

34


35


36


7

37


38


0.12 kWh taken from the system

39


Lift going back down

40


Heat is again generated

41


Noise is also generated

42


8

43


44


45


46


There is an overall loss of 0.4 kWh

0.8 kWh put back into the system

47

A lift does not use energy, it borrows it.

Interest is charged!


48

Lift Energy Simulation Model

9

49

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Time (seconds)

Pow

er (k

W)

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Spee

d (m

/s)

Zero speedController power

only

Kinetic energymainly flowing into

system

Constant Speed, potentialenergy into system mainly

Kinetic energyout of the system


only

Speed

Speed and energy consumption of a lift carrying different loads

50

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Time (seconds)

Pow

er (k

W)

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Spee

d (m

/s)


only


system




only

Speed

Down 25%


51

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Time (seconds)

Pow

er (k

W)

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Spee

d (m

/s)


only


system




only

Speed

Conterbalanced

Down 25%


52

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Time (seconds)

Pow

er (k

W)

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Spee

d (m

/s)


only


system




only

Speed

Conterbalanced

Down 25%

Down 75%


53


-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Time (seconds)

Pow

er (k

W)

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Spee

d (m

/s)


only


system




only

regenerated power

Speed

Conterbalanced

Down 25%

Down 75%

54

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

5 10 15

Time (seconds)

Pow

er (k

W)

up 1800 kgdown 0 kgup 1350 kgdown 450 kgdown 900 kgup 900 kgup 450 kgdown 1350 kgup 0 kgdown 1800 kg

Measured energy consumptionof an 1800 kg lift for trips in both directions

with the lift carrying different loads

10

55

Calculated energy consumptionfor the same lift trips

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

5 10 15

Time (seconds)

Pow

er (k

W)

up 1800 kgdown 0 kgup 1350 kgdown 450 kgdown 900 kgup 900 kgup 450 kgdown 1350 kgup 0 kgdown 1800 kg

56

Some variables taken into account

• Type and efficiency of drive (motor)• Whether the drive is regenerative or not• Whether the installation is geared or gearless• Roping arrangement including rope ratio and

single/double wrap• Rated load of the car• Mass of the empty car• Counterbalancing ratio• Travel for each trip• Speed, acceleration and jerk values

57

Energy Simulation Model

• Separate hydraulic and electric models• Implemented in Elevate• Calibration based on measurements in

London and Chicago

58

… for a single lift trip we can model energy

consumed almost exactly

59

So used with a traffic simulation program we measure energy for any building, any traffic and

any traffic control system

60

Graphical representation of traffic in a sample multi-tenant office building

Up traffic

Down traffic

11

61

Energy Simulation demonstration with

ThyssenKrupp version of

62

Case Studies

63

Case Study 1• Office building, Denver, Colorado.• Client asks: “How much energy saving will

I achieve by changing from MG to a DC PWM drive?”

• “What is the effect of the different traffic group control algorithm?”

64

ParametersParameter Value

Travel 336 ft Speed 700 fpm Number of floors 20 floors Capacity of each elevator 3500 lb Car mass 5000 lb Ropes 6 ropes of 5/8” diameter Roping arrangement 1:1 roping Wrap Double wrap Gearing Gearless Sheave 33” diameter Guide shoes Roller type Compensated Fully compensated Type of drive MG before mod/ 10k pwm after mod Number of elevators 6 elevators Daily traffic profile Siikonen full day profile in elevate Arrivals 1st floor (around 35% on 2nd, but not reflected in

simulations)

65

Traffic Pattern

66

Results (new drive)

12

67

Case Study 1: Results• MG set consumes 349 kWh per day per

group.• DC PWM drive consumes 215 kWh per day

per group.• Cost saving = 260 x 0.1 x (349.4-215.4)=

$3484 (£1,847) per year per group of elevators

68

Case Study 2• Residential Building, Torronto, Canada.• Client: “Is it worth me installing a

Regenerative VVVF drive as opposed a non-Regenerative VVVF drive?”

• “Is it worth my investment?”• “What is the pay-back period?”

69

Parameter Value Travel 375 ft Speed 500 fpm Number of condominiums 16 per floor, 1.5 persons per condominium Number of floors 41 floors Capacity of each elevator 2500 lb Car mass 5000 lb Ropes 7 ropes of 5/8” diameter Roping arrangement 1:1 roping Wrap single wrap Gearing Geared at 57:1 Sheave 30” diameter Guide shoes Roller type Compensated Fully compensated Type of drive AC VVVF Number of elevators 4 elevators

Parameters

70

Traffic Pattern (residential, Strackosh)

71

Case Study 2: Results (1)• The non-regenerative case consumes 304.8

kWh per day, per group.• Regenerative case consumes 197.5 kWh per

day per group. • Based on $0.1 per kWh, and assuming the

same traffic exists for 365 days a year, the cost saving per year is:

72

Case Study 2: Results (2)• Cost saving = 365 x 0.1 x (304.8-197.5)=

$3916.5• If we assume that the cost of each

regenerative unit per lift is $1500/unit, then the payback period (ignoring discounting is):

• Payback period = (4 x 1500)/3916.5 = 1.5 years

13

73

The energy model …• Provides tools for assessing

– New lift installations– Modernisations– Payback, e.g. for Regen vs. Non-Regen– New energy saving technologies

74

What’s coming?• Lifts which react to traffic conditions taking

into account energy use including– Standby modes in off peaks– Energy saving control though dispatching and

control of kinematics

75

Energy Consumption is related to performance

0102030405060708090

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

time

(s)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

Ener

gy (k

Wh)

Average Waiting Time Average Transit Time Energy

76

But get the basics right first ..• energy efficient (regenerative) drives and

controls• minimising inertia and other resisting forces• car lighting• accessible stairs

Documents

Green Lifts? Vertical Transportation Planning in …download.peters-research.com/cibsegreenlift/peters.pdfDr. Lutfi Al-Sharif Al-Sharif VTC Ltd.,UK Dr. Richard Peters Peters Research