Wonder if there is any studies or if anyone here could appreciate certain typical cases how much energy would be saved for certain types of setups regarding elevators. The answer will obviously be "it depends" but any estimations/number would be great.
Say you have one elevator in a 6storey building and you make it stop every 2 floors. How much would you save? You make the lazy people that take the elevator + one floor, you remove the amount of starts and stops and on top of that you get a faster elevator.
How about say a 20 floor building with say 3 elevators?
Would be great to see some numbers because the general idea of having the elevators stopping say every third floor creates more interesting dynamics as you can create proper "sub"lobbies, make people walk and much more.
All the best /cgh
null pointer
Jan 21, 16 7:21 pm
productivity loss.
not worth it.
null pointer
Jan 21, 16 7:25 pm
also, you just crippled your rent per square foot for half of your building. congrats, you're broke.
Non Sequitur
Jan 21, 16 7:27 pm
What a silly suggestion.
Carrera
Jan 21, 16 7:30 pm
Built many elevators and the cost is based on travel & stops. You would save on stops with less elevator doors built into the shaft (including controls), but that’s about it….which would probably be offset by the tenant law suits you’d get for the discrimination.
Miles Jaffe
Jan 21, 16 7:31 pm
I like the idea of a Fibonacci Elevator. The higher it goes, the more infrequent the stops.
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 ...
gruen
Jan 21, 16 9:10 pm
The elevator in the post office in Brno CR does not stop at any floor, just keeps going up, then across a huge gear, then back down. You jump on and off quick when it comes by. No stupid wussy doors either.
SpontaneousCombustion
Jan 21, 16 9:24 pm
If the building is more than about 10 stories, and if there are multiple elevators, then a destination dispatch system will save more energy than your alternating-floor scheme, and still meet all your ADA & fire code requirements.
There are some residential buildings that do have elevators that stop only every 2 floors and are code-compliant, by stacking two-story apartments that have internal stairs. This allows alternate floors to have little or no shared circulation space, which lets more of the building area be maxed out by housing units.
midlander
Jan 22, 16 1:13 am
In terms of energy savings, the results are probably quite meager. Elevators account for around 5% of energy use in office buildings. The biggest savings are likely to come from improved control systems that reduce power consumption in idle elevators. A very large amount of the power used by elevators is when they are just sitting there waiting for passengers. Somewhere on the above link it suggests improved idling controls could reduce elevator power use up to 40% (presumably compared to leaving the whole system all 24 hours - which few buildings managers would actually do. At night they usually shut down all but one elevator to save power)
And think about it - imagine 2 systems: A - car holds 12 people, 4 people get off at floors 6,8,10. B - car holds 12 people, 8 people get off at 7 (stairs to 6,8) and 4 people get off at 10.
The total vertical travel is the same. The load is about the same. 1 stop fewer. Could that really save more than a trivial amount of energy? For a typical elevator being used at reasonable capacity, it will still be travelling about as much, and carrying exactly the same number of people. Just fewer stops.
The San Francisco Federal Building by Morphosis has exactly this kind of skip-stop elevator system. I remember watching a presentation that excoriated it - occupants really hate the skip stop system. Apparently a study by the GSA found it the most disliked of 22 federal buildings based on occupant surveys. Not all of that was due to the elevator system, but it was a big part.
Volunteer
Jan 22, 16 6:53 pm
What about the people in wheel chairs or are on crutches?
SneakyPete
Jan 22, 16 7:47 pm
I believe there's always at least one elevator that stops on each floor for ADA compliance.
enzomimo
Apr 1, 19 11:52 pm
null_ptr and Non Seq are daft twats w/ zero experience in 1-up/1-level/1-down residential highrises, in which the elevators land only every 3rd floor. Virtually every postwar MidMod/MiMo "tower block" in the UK, France, and Germany were erected with this scheme, and they were, and still are, in HUGE demand. (e.g. Trellick Tower in London, Park Hill in Sheffield, Corbu's many iterations of Unité d'Habitation, etc.)
re Elevators: not only do you need a whopping 2/3rds LESS shaft doors per lift($), you need about 1/3 fewer lifts TOTAL ($$), due to increased through-put, i.e. 3 peeps getting on at one landing is approx. 3 times faster than stopping to get 1 resident on each of 3 floors. The 2/3rds of residents who have to walk up or down "one whole floor" upon entering their flats do not mind at all, because...
re Flats and Rentable Space: 1) their 1-up and 1-down units are LARGER than the on-level unit, by the size of the access hallway, i.e. width of the "repeating module" times width of hallway, typically 108 sq ft extra; 2) by omitting the hallway, the 1-up and 1-down are not only larger, but dual aspect, i.e. extend ALL THE WAY through the building, i.e. fenestration on both ends... the on-level unit relies on indirect light from windows in the hallway; 3) PRIVACY--the 1-up and 1-down have no one passing by their windows, whereas the on-level unit has windows (typically kitchen) opening into the common hallway; 4) only extremely lazy Type 2 Diabetes fat fvcks mind walking one whole floor, after taking a lift up 24 floors... lulz.
Non Sequitur
Apr 2, 19 5:54 am
What a wanker.
Miles Jaffe
Apr 2, 19 12:07 am
Skip-stop elevators were one of the design "features" at Pruitt–Igoe that seem to have been intended to prevent the idea of public housing from spreading.
Hi
Wonder if there is any studies or if anyone here could appreciate certain typical cases how much energy would be saved for certain types of setups regarding elevators. The answer will obviously be "it depends" but any estimations/number would be great.
Say you have one elevator in a 6storey building and you make it stop every 2 floors. How much would you save? You make the lazy people that take the elevator + one floor, you remove the amount of starts and stops and on top of that you get a faster elevator.
How about say a 20 floor building with say 3 elevators?
Would be great to see some numbers because the general idea of having the elevators stopping say every third floor creates more interesting dynamics as you can create proper "sub"lobbies, make people walk and much more.
All the best /cgh
productivity loss.
not worth it.
also, you just crippled your rent per square foot for half of your building. congrats, you're broke.
What a silly suggestion.
Built many elevators and the cost is based on travel & stops. You would save on stops with less elevator doors built into the shaft (including controls), but that’s about it….which would probably be offset by the tenant law suits you’d get for the discrimination.
I like the idea of a Fibonacci Elevator. The higher it goes, the more infrequent the stops.
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 ...
The elevator in the post office in Brno CR does not stop at any floor, just keeps going up, then across a huge gear, then back down. You jump on and off quick when it comes by. No stupid wussy doors either.
If the building is more than about 10 stories, and if there are multiple elevators, then a destination dispatch system will save more energy than your alternating-floor scheme, and still meet all your ADA & fire code requirements.
There are some residential buildings that do have elevators that stop only every 2 floors and are code-compliant, by stacking two-story apartments that have internal stairs. This allows alternate floors to have little or no shared circulation space, which lets more of the building area be maxed out by housing units.
In terms of energy savings, the results are probably quite meager. Elevators account for around 5% of energy use in office buildings. The biggest savings are likely to come from improved control systems that reduce power consumption in idle elevators. A very large amount of the power used by elevators is when they are just sitting there waiting for passengers. Somewhere on the above link it suggests improved idling controls could reduce elevator power use up to 40% (presumably compared to leaving the whole system all 24 hours - which few buildings managers would actually do. At night they usually shut down all but one elevator to save power)
And think about it - imagine 2 systems:
A - car holds 12 people, 4 people get off at floors 6,8,10.
B - car holds 12 people, 8 people get off at 7 (stairs to 6,8) and 4 people get off at 10.
The total vertical travel is the same. The load is about the same. 1 stop fewer. Could that really save more than a trivial amount of energy? For a typical elevator being used at reasonable capacity, it will still be travelling about as much, and carrying exactly the same number of people. Just fewer stops.
The San Francisco Federal Building by Morphosis has exactly this kind of skip-stop elevator system. I remember watching a presentation that excoriated it - occupants really hate the skip stop system. Apparently a study by the GSA found it the most disliked of 22 federal buildings based on occupant surveys. Not all of that was due to the elevator system, but it was a big part.
What about the people in wheel chairs or are on crutches?
I believe there's always at least one elevator that stops on each floor for ADA compliance.
null_ptr and Non Seq are daft twats w/ zero experience in 1-up/1-level/1-down residential highrises, in which the elevators land only every 3rd floor. Virtually every postwar MidMod/MiMo "tower block" in the UK, France, and Germany were erected with this scheme, and they were, and still are, in HUGE demand. (e.g. Trellick Tower in London, Park Hill in Sheffield, Corbu's many iterations of Unité d'Habitation, etc.)
re Elevators: not only do you need a whopping 2/3rds LESS shaft doors per lift($), you need about 1/3 fewer lifts TOTAL ($$), due to increased through-put, i.e. 3 peeps getting on at one landing is approx. 3 times faster than stopping to get 1 resident on each of 3 floors. The 2/3rds of residents who have to walk up or down "one whole floor" upon entering their flats do not mind at all, because...
re Flats and Rentable Space: 1) their 1-up and 1-down units are LARGER than the on-level unit, by the size of the access hallway, i.e. width of the "repeating module" times width of hallway, typically 108 sq ft extra; 2) by omitting the hallway, the 1-up and 1-down are not only larger, but dual aspect, i.e. extend ALL THE WAY through the building, i.e. fenestration on both ends... the on-level unit relies on indirect light from windows in the hallway; 3) PRIVACY--the 1-up and 1-down have no one passing by their windows, whereas the on-level unit has windows (typically kitchen) opening into the common hallway; 4) only extremely lazy Type 2 Diabetes fat fvcks mind walking one whole floor, after taking a lift up 24 floors... lulz.
What a wanker.
Skip-stop elevators were one of the design "features" at Pruitt–Igoe that seem to have been intended to prevent the idea of public housing from spreading.