Control of a four-level elevator system using

a programmable logic controller

L. Cheded1 and Ma’an Al-Mulla2
1
Systems Engineering Department, KFUPM, Saudi Arabia
2
Saudi Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
E-mail: cheded@kfupm.edu.sa; maanmm@yahoo.com

Abstract This project reports on the design and implementation of a PLC-based controller for a four-
level elevator. The PLC used is an Omron Sysmac C20K with 12 inputs and 8 outputs. The design
incorporates an intelligent controller that services all the requests in an energy-saving way, rather than
on a first-come, first-served basis. Some suggestions on how to extend this system to the control of
more than four floors are also included.

Keywords elevator control; intelligent control; Omron Sysmac; programmable logic control; state
diagram

Many engineering systems, including elevator systems,1,2 are nowadays controlled

by programmable logic controllers (PLCs). The reliance on these PLCs is due to
their high reliability and efficiency. In this paper, the design and implementation of
a four-level elevator system controlled by a small PLC is discussed.
The PLC may be considered as a special-purpose computer with a basic archi-
tecture similar to that of any other known computer such as a central processing unit
(CPU).3,4 It is based on a memory and a number of input and output terminals. The
software used for PLC programming is based on a special language known as the
ladder diagram. The ladder diagram is an easy programming language since it is
based on Boolean logic functions. This makes the task of modifying any system
much easier and more cost-effective. The size of the PLC is one of the factors con-
sidered when it is selected to control a process. PLCs come in various sizes and
different capabilities; the sizes range from small controllers with limited inputs and
outputs used for controlling small processes, to very large ones with more inputs
and outputs provided which are used to control much larger processes and opera-
tions. Determining the appropriate PLC to be used is based on analysing the process
to be controlled and accordingly identifying the number of inputs and outputs
required.
The PLC has many advantages over other control systems. It is known for its flex-
ibility, lower cost, operational speed, reliability, ease of programming, security, and
it is easy in implementing changes and correcting errors.3 One of the applications
using PLCs is the control of elevator systems. A simulation of such control was suc-
cessfully tested in a senior-project course in the Systems Engineering Department
at KFUPM, where an Omron 12-input and 8-output PLC was used. This paper pre-
sents both the hardware and software aspects of the successful design and operation
of this PLC-based controller.

International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 39/2

Control of a four-level elevator system 111

Objectives of the project

The objective of the project is the design and implementation of a four-level eleva-
tor system controlled by a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). The design was
limited to four levels due to the limited number of inputs provided by the Omron
PLC available. Some suggestions are given later as to how to extend the elevator
system to more than four levels. Moreover, the design was not based on a first-come
first-served basis, since this approach was not found to be practical. As a practical
compromise between energy consumption and speed of response, we decided to
combine all requests going in one direction (up or down), and then process them in
sequential order. This was achieved in the following manner: if the elevator is going
up, all ‘up’ requests are given higher priority than the ‘down’ requests until the ele-
vator reaches the last destination upwards. Then the elevator goes down but now
gives priority to all ‘down’ requests over the ‘up’ ones. More details on this will be
given in the section ‘Software design’.

Hardware design
The objective of the hardware design is to develop the interface circuit between the
PLC and the elevator system and the elevator control panel, with both external and
internal requests. These requests are produced by push buttons that send continuous
signals to the PLC when activated. Each push button is connected to an LED to iden-
tify the request placed. In addition, the four floors are represented by four LEDs,
one for each level. Furthermore, an alarm switch is installed to produce a flashing
signal whenever activated. This facility was introduced to simulate the desire for a
sudden stoppage of the elevator either for reasons of safety or for requests for a
repair job to be carried out on the elevator.
In order to obtain the desired setup, we needed to find a way to capture the pulse
generated by a depressed push button. We also needed to make sure that the PLC is
recognising these signals in order for it to correctly perform the required action. As
explained below, both issues were resolved by using set/reset flip flops and relays
respectively.
The block diagram of the system’s layout is shown in Fig. 1, where both the inter-
face between the PLC and the elevator system with the control panel are drawn.

Elevator
12 Inputs 12 Inputs
System with
Control Interface PLC
Panel Circuit

8 Outputs

Fig. 1 Block diagram of the system layout.

International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 39/2

112 L. Cheded and M. Al-Mulla

Description of the interface circuit

The hardware components used in the project are listed below:
Omron Sysmac C20K PLC.
74LS04,74LS279,74LS156, which are inverters, SR flip flops and buffers,
respectively.
Voltage supply.
Push buttons, LEDs, resistors, relays, a switch, and connecting wires.
Since the number of required inputs and outputs, i.e. 12 and 8 respectively, matches
the maximum input/output capability of the PLC used, there is no need for any
multiplexing or demultiplexing operations. Thus all inputs and outputs used can be
directly controlled by the PLC.
As shown in Fig. 2, the push buttons were connected to the SR flip flops, since
the PLC needs continuous signals to process, and so do the lights that indicate the
requests placed. The flip flop holds the signal until the reset is activated. The reset
of the flip flop is the level position for levels L1 and L4. So when the elevator reaches
one of these two levels and a request is placed the output will reset the requested
signal. However levels L2 and L3 are reset by software. The reason for that is
because L2 and L3 are intermediate levels. So when the elevator is travelling
upwards or downwards, it has to either flash at the level it passes to show the current
elevator position or service this level if its request has the appropriate direction by
setting its request. In this case, it will also reset all requests associated with the
serviced levels.

Description of the control panel

The 12 inputs and 8 outputs used in this project are listed and defined in Table 1.
As shown in Fig. 3, the elevator system consists of three sections: internal
requests, external requests, and the elevator position. The internal requests are rep-
resented by the push buttons inside the elevator which consists of four push buttons
(1–4) and a door open (DO) push button. A door close push button could not have
been included in the design because of the limited number of available inputs. The
external requests are represented by the six push buttons located outside the eleva-
tor and distributed according to their corresponding floors. It consists of six push
buttons distributed according to the position of the level. The elevator position is
displayed by the four LEDs, one for each level, which are directly controlled by the
PLC according to the location of the elevator.

Request signal from Signal to light representing

the push button
S Q
chosen request

"Request serviced" R
signal

Fig. 2 General scheme for the use of an S/R flip flop in this project.

International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 39/2

Control of a four-level elevator system 113

TABLE 1 List and definitions of inputs and outputs used

Inputs Outputs

Symbol Function Symbol Function

1U Outer request at level 1 to go up L1 Indication that the elevator is at level 1

I1 Inner request to go to level 1 L2 Indication that the elevator is at level 2
2D Outer request at level 2 to go down L3 Indication that the elevator is at level 3
2U Outer request at level 2 to go up L4 Indication that the elevator is at level 4
I2 Inner request to go to level 2 DO Indication that the door of the elevator
3D Outer request at level 3 to go down is open
3U Outer request at level 3 to go up A1 Indication that the alarm switch was
I3 Inner request to go to level 3 activated
4D Outer request at level 4 to go down L2R Signal to reset outer requests at level
I4 Inner request to go to level 4 L3R Signal to reset outer requests at level 3
A1 Alarm switch
DO Door open request

Elevator
1 2 3 4 Position

External Requests Internal Requests

4 3 4

3 1 2

2 DO DO

DC

1 AL

Fig. 3 Overall layout of the control panel of the elevator.

Software design
The elevator system may run in two different control modes: dumb control and
intelligent control. In order to achieve the complete design, all possible transitions
and stages the elevator system has to go through were considered and a complete
flowchart was drawn for this.5

International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 39/2

114 L. Cheded and M. Al-Mulla

Control modes
Of the two different control modes: dumb control, or intelligent control, the dumb
control is not popular these days because it is not practical. It is usually used for
transporting material and equipment in buildings, where all the floors have to be
visited sequentially and continuously. On the other hand, the intelligent control
responds to requests placed by users by ordering and processing them in an intel-
ligent manner. This type of control is used in most applications requiring modern
elevators. Hence only the intelligent mode was designed and implemented as
discussed below.

Intelligent control
The intelligent control is based on taking all requests and ordering them in an
intelligent manner such that the earlier-mentioned compromise between energy
consumption and speed of response is met. All possible transitions were included
as shown in the state diagram of Fig. 4.
In Fig. 4, the transitions Tij from level i to level j, with i, j = 1,4 and i π j, are all
defined below, where the apostrophe (‘) denotes the ‘logical complementation’ oper-
ation. As for the four states, these are respectively defined by the transitions Tii, with
i = 1,4, that are also defined below but are not shown in Fig. 4. Each state is simply
characterised by (a) the lift being at the floor represented by this state, in which case
the light at this floor should be ON, and (b) either the door being open , i.e. DO is
ON, or the alarm (AL) being ON. Note that ORing the last two conditions will
prevent the lift from leaving the particular level it is at if either of these two condi-
tions becomes true.
Transitions from level 1 up to levels 2, 3 and 4
T11 = L1.(DO + AL)
T12 = L1.[(I2 + 2U) + 2D.(3U + 3D + I3 + 4D + I4)’.
] DC
T13 = L1.(I2 + 2U + 2D)’.[(I3 + 3U) + 3D.(4D + I4)’.
] DC
T14 = L1.(I2 + 2U + 2D)’.(I3 + 3U + 3D)’.(I4 + 4D).DC (State 1)

T43&T32&T21 1 T12

T32&T21
T21
T12&T23&T34

T43&T32
4 T23&T34
2
T34 T32
T12&T23

T23
T43 3
Fig. 4 State diagram of intelligent control.

International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 39/2

Control of a four-level elevator system 115

Transitions from level 2 to levels 1, 3 and 4

T21 = L2.(I1 + 1U).DC
T22 = L2.(DO + AL)
T23 = L2.[(I3 + 3U) + 3D.(4D + I4)’.
] DC
( ) ( )
T24 = L2. I3 + 3U ’. I4 + 4D .DC (State 2)
Transitions from level 3 to levels 1, 2 and 4
T31 = L3.(I2 + 2D)’.(I1 + 1U).DC
T32 = L3.[(I2 + 2D) + 2U.(I1 + 1U)’.
] DC
(
T33 = L3. DO + AL )
T34 = L3.[(I4 + 4D).DC (State 3)
Transitions from level 4 down to levels 3, 2 and 1
T41 = L4.[(I2 + 2D)’.(I3 + 3D)’.(I1 + 1U).DC
T42 = L4.(I3 + 3D)’.[(I2 + 2D) + 2U.(I1 + 1U)’.
] DC
T43 = L4.[I3 + 3D + 3U.(I1 + 1U + I2 + 2U + 2D)’.
] DC
(
T44 = L4. DO + AL ) (State 4)
It is to be noted at this stage that, in the absence of any requests, the intelligent con-
troller will, by design, not allow the elevator to cycle unnecessarily between the four
levels. Such repetitive cycling was categorised as part of the ‘dumb control’ mode
as discussed earlier.

Description of the operation of the elevator under intelligent control

The elevator starts at level 1. It opens the door for 5 s, then checks for requests in
upper levels. The movement from one level to another is represented by a timer. The
transition between two successive levels takes 8 s. As soon as a request is serviced,
the door opens for 5 s to take passengers in, and then proceeds to the next request
to be serviced. Whenever a level is passed by, its light flashes for 1 s to indicate the
current position of the elevator on its way to its required destination. The requests
whose direction (up or down) is similar to the current direction of the elevator
are always serviced before those made in the opposite direction, regardless of which
requests were made first. The system continues to service all the remaining requests
in a similar way. Whenever no more requests are left to service, the elevator will
simply remain at the level it was last at, keeping the door open for 5 s and then
closing it until a fresh request is made. However the door is programmed to never
open in between levels, and whenever the alarm switch is activated, the alarm signal
starts flashing and the elevator stops at the next immediate destination, opens the
door and freezes all requests until the alarm is set off again.
An illustrative example on the intelligent control of the elevator is explained
below:

International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 39/2

116 L. Cheded and M. Al-Mulla

Assume the following requests: 2D, 3U, 4D, were made and the elevator is currently
at level 1. The PLC will then perform the following sequence: First, all up requests
are serviced, i.e. in this case only 3U will be serviced. Next the elevator reaches the
fourth floor to service 4D, and finally it services the remaining down requests, which
in our case is 2D.
The complete ladder diagram and program for the intelligent control mode can
be found in ref. [5].

Suggestions for extending the current system to a higher-than-4-level

elevator system
The elevator system designed and implemented in this project was restricted to four
levels. This restriction was due only to the limited number of inputs and outputs pro-
vided by the PLC used. However, to extend the system to more than four levels,
some suggestions are made below:

Suggestion 1
Use a more powerful PLC. PLCs come in different sizes and with various capabil-
ities. When increasing the number of levels in the elevator system, the designer must
identify the number of inputs and outputs required to select the most suitable PLC.

Suggestion 2
Use two Omron PLCs working together. One PLC can be dedicated to the control
of the lower four floors while the other controls the upper three floors. Information
about the switch from the set of four floors to the set of three floors and vice-versa
can be transmitted from one PLC to the other via two communication lines, C12 and
C21, as shown in Fig. 5. The line C12 will transmit to PLC2 the information that
PLC1 has sensed the requests for the upper three floors (F5–F7) and once all requests

11 INPUTS PLC 1 7 OUTPUTS

Floors
F1 - F4
C12

C21

PLC 2
7 OUTPUTS
11 INPUTS Floors
F5 - F7

Fig. 5 Use of two PLCs working together.

International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 39/2

Control of a four-level elevator system 117

associated with the lower four floors (F1–F4) have been serviced, the control of the
upper three floors will be automatically transferred to PLC2. A similar function is
carried out by C21. In this case, instead of having 12 inputs and 8 outputs only, 22
inputs and 14 outputs would be required as shown in Fig. 5.

Suggestion 3
The use of a more elaborate input/output interface board together with a single
Omron PLC is worthwhile investigating. It should however be borne in mind that,
in this case, the overall system cost should be kept lower than that in the previous
two suggestions.

Conclusion
In this paper, the successful design and implementation of the intelligent control
of a 4-level elevator system using only a small educational PLC was discussed. The
design includes a simple scheme that aims at a good compromise between energy
consumption and speed of response without requiring any extra circuitry. Some sug-
gestions as to how to extend the design to handle a larger number of floors were
also given. Finally, it is hoped that this work has demonstrated that, despite their
limited control capabilities, small educational PLCs, when fully exploited, can
indeed tackle industrial control jobs of modest size in a cost-effective way.

References
1 G. C. Barney and S. M. Dos Santos, Lift Traffic Analysis: Design and Control (Peter Peregrinus,
1977).
2 G. R. Srtakosh, Vertical Transportation: Elevators and Escalators (John Wiley, New York, 1967).
3 I. Warnock, Programmable Controllers (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1988).
4 J. W. Webb, Programmable Logic Controllers: Principles and Applications (Macmillan, New York,
1988).
5 M. Al Mulla, Control of a 4-level Elevator System Using a Programmable Logic Controller, Senior
Project, Systems Engineering Department, KFUPM, September 1988.

International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 39/2