02-10-1 pg90-98 2/11/09 10:04 AM Page 90
EDUCATIONAL FOCUS: ELEVATOR SAFETIES AND GOVERNORS
BI-DIRECTIONAL SAFETY
GEARS FOR CABIN
by Bertoni Stefano, Technical Director, Montanari Giulio & Co.
The recent introduction in Europe of the directive 95/16/EC
and of the corresponding harmonization standard EN 81,
have brought with them numerous changes in the elevator
field thereby revolutionizing a way of thinking entrenched
after decades of stagnation. Among the numerous variations
introduced in the area of safety, one of the more impor-
tant ones is, without doubt, the obligation to furnish the
elevators with gear designed to prevent uncontrolled move-
ments of the cabin when traveling upwards.
The EN 81 standard sanctions the minimum safety criteria
Elevator Safeties and Governors
as follows:
◆ mandatory application for elevators with friction;
◆ the capacity to stop or slow the empty cabin to a maxi-
mum speed, defined as a function of the nominal speed,
and in the presence of a deceleration less than 1gn,
where gn signifies the acceleration due to gravity equal to
9.81m/sec^2.
Considering that the concepts of braking a cabin traveling
upward is new and that it was not taken into considera-
tion by the previous standard, I believe that a clarification
of Standard EN 81 is necessary or at least more necessary
than others, as for example Annex M, where diagrams,
formulas and examples regarding concepts already known
are shown, such as that of the adhesion of the cables to
the traction sheave. Unfortunately, the standard gives
little information regarding how to define the technical
characteristics or the required performance for the
safety gear. In my opinion, the lack of a suitable expla-
nation as well as the general habit of reasoning on the
basis of the old standards has undervalued certain as-
pects which have proven to be a source of ambiguity
and misinterpretation.
Example:
To order a pair of safety gears, it normally would suffice
to provide, in addition to the data regarding the guides
and the velocity, the total mass of the cabin, the nominal
capacity and the weight of the accessories, in practical
terms, the so-called P+Q.
This is now no longer adequate, in so far that the
coming of bi-directional gear devices has imposed an
additional stress. In other words, it’s not necessary to
90 Educational Focus Compilation
indicate the sum total of that mass but rather to list in
detail the mass of the capacity (Q kg), the mass of the
cabin plus the frame complete with accessories (P kg)
and the mass of the counterweights (Mcwt kg). These
figures are the minimum required to verify the suitability
of the desired equipment, whether dealing with a safety
gear or another device.
In fact, it’s necessary to be able to calculate the force
necessary to brake the empty cabin traveling upward in
order to then compare it with the characteristics normally
described on the type-examination certificate allowed for
that device.
To illustrate, I give a simplified formula for this calculation:
FS = Mcwt x (gn + a) - P x (gn + a)
FS (N.) = force necessary for braking
Mcwt (kg) = mass of the counterweights complete with
any sheaves
P (kg) = mass of the empty cabin including the frame
components which it supports
gn (m/sec^2) = acceleration due to gravity = 9.81m/sec^2
a (m/sec^2) = expected deceleration which must be <1gn
If the value of the counterweights is not known, yet the
balancing factor is, the following formula may be used:
FS = (2 x P + Bil x Q) x a + bil x Q x gn
bil = balancing factor (for example, 50% = 0.5 or also 40% = 0.4)
Q (kg) = cabin capacity
These formulas are greatly simplified and do not
take into account potentially crucial factors (for exam-
ple: friction, roping mass, sheave inertia, etc.). I never-
theless believe that they may be used in the majority
of cases.
The selection of the safety components is crucial in the
design and construction of an elevator system. There are
many other factors that come into play in their selection
and during construction with respect to the past and
these must also be made known to the dealer, in addition
to the design engineer or to the manufacturer.
A clearer and more detailed standard could have prevented
lack of understanding and ambiguity.
With this article, I hope to help anyone who still has
doubts on the matter. c
02-10-1 pg90-98 2/11/09 10:04 AM Page 91

EDUCATIONAL FOCUS: ELEVATOR SAFETIES AND GOVERNORS

ELEVATOR SAFETY
AND GOVERNORS
by K. Subramaniam, Johnson Lifts Private Ltd., Chennai, India

Elisha Otis standing on a platform with his safety clutch Governors

had the ropes of the platform to be cut to demonstrate Normally, the pendulum-
and prove the mechanical safety of his innovation. Ever type governor is located
since, it has become an industry norm to have a mechanical in the machine room. If it is
safety for the lift cabin. Instead of cutting the ropes, a device located elsewhere due to
known as an overspeed governor was introduced to sense certain site conditions, it
the speed of the lift and, in the event of an overspeed, it should be ensured that it is
actuates the safety clutch of the car to bring the car to a easily accessible from out-
stop mechanically. side the hoistway. The
Safety Clutch/Safety Gear or Car Safety – function of the governor
As Known in Elevator Parlance is to check the overspeed-
Generally, two designs of safety gear are in use – the ing of the car and initiate

Elevator Safeties and Governors

instantaneous type and the progressive type. the safety gear in case the
The selection of a safety is made considering the total speed of the lift exceeds
inertia in the system. Inertia is a multiplication factor of the predetermined value.
load and speed. The selection is normally recommended The governor is connected
in the various standards for typical loads and speeds. to the lift car by way of a
◆ Instantaneous type: There are two types – one with eccen- Pendulum-type governor rope and is connected to
tric cam grip and the other with roller. Cam is a bulkier the car safety. A tension
design when compared to roller. weight is provided to
◆ Gradual/Progressive type: This also has two versions, keep the rope in tension.
the older version with drum, screw and wedge and the Two types of governors are
modern version with disc springs or block springs. in use. Governors with
Several shapes and designs of safety gears are available wheel having weights linked
with its associated link mechanism. Most of the designs with springs, which try
have the linkage system on top of the car and the safety to move outward due to
gear located at the bottom. An electrical safety switch is centrifugal action and actu-
incorporated in the assembly, which, when actuated, ate the pawl. The second
will also stop the lift. This switch is provided to make an has a pendulum and any
attempt to stop the lift by removing the power from the increase in the throw of the
motor and thereby applying the brake before the me- pendulum due to overspeed
chanical gripping takes place. will actuate the pawl. The
pawl, in turn, releases the
governor jaws to grip the
governor rope, which in
“V” groove-type governor turn actuates the safety
gear. In the present-day modern pendulum governors, the
governor wheel has a deep “V” groove and, in the event of
overspeed, the wheel is stopped by the pawl. Since it is a
“V” groove, the rope also stops along with the wheel creating
sufficient tension to actuate the safety gear on the car.
Some Guidelines on Installations
The correct positioning of the safety gear with respect
to the guides is very important. After the car sling and
Drum-type gradual safety gear counterweights are roped and suspended, the clearances

Educational Focus Compilation 91

02-10-1 pg90-98 2/11/09 10:04 AM Page 92
EDUCATIONAL FOCUS: ELEVATOR SAFETIES AND GOVERNORS
between guide and safety gear roller or cams are to be
checked and gaps must be uniform on either side and on
both ends. By adjusting the guide shoes and the safety,
the required clearances can be obtained. In the older cam
design, the rope to the master cam should neither be too
tight nor too slack. For such cam designs, normally the rope
is from a spring-loaded arrangement known as “torpedo
rope release.” This torpedo rope release will avoid actuation
of cams due to any jerk in the car. The spring in the torpedo
release must be to the correct pressure. The same procedure
is adopted for the gradual safety gears as well.
The rope from the governor to the car anchorage must
be in plumb from where it is connected to the safety gear.
In older designs, the return rope from the tension weight
is anchored separately at the bottom of the car. The rope
from the governor to the tension weight must also be in
plumb and adjustments will normally be available in the
tension weight brackets to make good any error in the
plumb line. Care must be taken to ensure that governor
Elevator Safeties and Governors
ropes are free from any obstruction along the travel of the
lift. There are occasions where locating the governor and
tension weight becomes a difficult task, especially in cramped
lift shafts. The governor rope holes in machine room floor
slab to be made good without any undulations and projec-
tions, preferably to be finished by inserting a two-inch
PVC pipe to the full thickness of the floor slab.
Any mistake in safety gear location with respect to the
guides could lead to severe damages to the guides. When-
ever safety gear is actuated if gripping is not uniform, the
impact will tend to create a twisting moment that can result
in the bending of the guides.
Nowadays, many governors are made with a test groove
of smaller diameter. Transferring the rope to the test groove
will create overspeed for the governor with lift running at
normal speed and the safety gear can be tested. It is recom-
mended having the safety gear test done with a rated load
in the car.
Guide Lines on Maintenance and Repairs
Unlike the other components in an elevator, the safety
gear and the governor are passive components and do
not perform in the normal working of the lift. Even in the
governor, except the wheel rotating with the movement
of the car, other elements are passive. Normally, less
attention is given to the safety gear and governor by the
maintenance personnel and is mostly taken for granted.
Though much attention need not be given during the
routine maintenance visits, nevertheless it cannot be
totally neglected or ignored. It is advisable to check the
safety gear linkages at least once in four months and look
for problems in pivots and joints and also to check the
system for free movement.
92 Educational Focus Compilation
In older lifts, the gover-
nor wheel will have gun-
metal or bronze bushing
and similar bushings will
also be there in the spring
guides, weight, pivots, etc.
Over a period of usage,
these bushings are likely to
wear out, creating noise
during lift running and if
left unattended will start
getting actuated even at
normal speed. This noise
will be one of the prompting
factors to replace the bush-
ing. Being calibrated equip-
ment, much care is to be
Torpedo rope releaser taken to recalibrate the
governor after the necessary replacement and repairs of
the bushings. Preferably, the recalibration should be done
on a regular test bench and not on the installation site. In
governors with weights, there are chances that oil with
dust can clog the bushings preventing free movement
of the weights. This particular aspect is to be checked
periodically, preferably at every routine service call,
especially in installations with dusty atmospheres and
very cold places.
The same could happen even to the safety gear assembly.
Over a period of time, governor rope tends to stretch and
elongate, especially in very tall buildings. With this stretch
of ropes, the tension weight goes down. Once it reaches its
limits, the rope becomes slack, and chances are it can get
entangled causing severe damages.
An electrical safety switch is provided for such elongation
of the ropes, but many times, you will find it bypassed.
This is done at the first instance as a temporary measure
and seldom gets rectified on subsequent visits. Mainte-
nance personnel should check the switch and the status of
the tension weight and necessary corrective action be
planned and completed at the earliest. In certain buildings,
rodents like rats getting in between rope and wheel can
also lead to such damage as the rope getting entangled.
Typical safety gear link mechanism
02-10-1 pg90-98 2/11/09 10:04 AM Page 93

EDUCATIONAL FOCUS: ELEVATOR SAFETIES AND GOVERNORS

Many times, the safety gear comes into action on its

own due to the jerk in the car or due to sudden stoppage
of the car. The governor type with a “V” groove is very prone
to such nuisance breakdowns. The most tricky situation
will be when the car overshoots the top floor with an
abrupt stop as the safety gear comes into action in the top
most travel section. Releasing the safety gear is not easy
in such a situation and sometimes maintenance personnel
have to jack up the counterweight and remove its buffer
spring to allow enough up travel for the car to release the
safety gear.
The electrical switch that is provided in the safety gear
assembly is to be critically adjusted for it to be effective in
stopping the lift. This critical adjustment can also be a
nuisance factor for creating unwanted breakdowns by
getting actuated due to jerk or shake during running.
After actuation and stopping, the system restores itself
and the lift will continue to work normally. Service people
attending such callbacks will find nothing amiss with the

Elevator Safeties and Governors

lift working normally. Such callbacks can be due to the
safety gear linkages getting disturbed – maybe someone
jumped inside the cabin when the lift is running for reasons
best known to him.
There are cases where the counterweight is also to be
provided with a separate governor and safety gear unit,
whenever installations have constraints in the pit. Normally
the pit is to withstand the impact of counterweight hitting
the buffer whenever car over travels in the up direction. The
governor and safety gear is recommended for the counter-
weight whenever the pit floor cannot take the impact load
or whenever the area below the pit floor is being put to
beneficial use. Dual-acting governors and safety gears are
introduced to take care of overspeeding in both up and
down directions. In certain countries, this has been made
mandatory in the standards.
Governors and safety gears, whether older designs or the
new versions, are all proven designs. The most cumber-
some design is the gradual-acting screw wedge type with the
drum. Releasing the safety can be done only by unwinding
the drum from inside the car. So when the safety is actuated,
one should enter into the lift cabin through the trap door
provided in the car roof, which is quite laborious. Improve-
ments have been made from time to time to make things
easier in installation, alignment and releasing the safety
gear. With high-speed lifts with high capacities, a consider-
able amount of energy is dissipated by way of heat when-
ever the safety gear is actuated. The temperature rise in guide
rail and safety gear may be so enormous it can deform
the guides and safety gear assembly. Ceramic/powder
metallurgy technology are being experimented with the
safety gear gripping jaws. c
Educational Focus Compilation 93
02-10-1 pg90-98 2/11/09 10:04 AM Page 94

EDUCATIONAL FOCUS: ELEVATOR SAFETIES AND GOVERNORS

LIFT SAFETY GEAR TESTING

WITHOUT WEIGHTS:
A CRITIQUE AND OVERVIEW
by Dr. Lutfi Al-Sharif, BSc, MSc, PhD, CEng, MIEE, DBA,
Associate Director, Building Transportation, WSP Group
With the issuing of the LG1 (Guidance notes on the Safety Gear Application Equations
thorough examination of lifts) in the U.K., it has become During the application of a safety gear, a number of
necessary to carry out regular safety gear tests with full forces are acting on the car (and its load). Figure 1 shows
load on all lifts. In certain cases, the guidance notes allow a simplified diagram. When the safety gear applies, the
alteration of these tests, provided a risk assessment is following forces are acting on the car:
carried out. 1. The weight of the car: This will be referred to as FC, and
One method that has originated in Germany is the use is equal to the mC xg, where mC is the mass of the car in
of an accelerometer to obviate the need to use weights kilograms, and g is the acceleration due to gravity, 9.81mps2.
during the test. This method allows the prediction of the free 2. The weight of the passengers/load: This will be referred
fall acceleration to check that it is above 0.2g, as required to as FP/L, and is equal to the mP/Lxg, where mP/L is the
by the European Standard. mass of the passengers/load in kilograms, and g is the acceler-
Elevator Safeties and Governors

This method has a number of advantages. The most ation due to gravity, 9.81mps2.
important of which is that it prevents any damage to the 3. The force of the safety gear: This applies in the upward di-
lift system components caused by the large forces generated rection, as it is a frictional force resisting the movement of the
during a full-load application of the safety gear. car in the down direction. It will be denoted by FSG in Newtons.
4. The upward force in the ropes acting on the car: Assuming
This article describes a number of practical tests carried
that the ropes are still in tension during the application of the
out to validate the method for heavy duty lifts. The relevant
safety gear, then they would apply an upward force. This force
formulae are derived and analyzed. The conditions under
is the resultant of two forces: The weight of the counterweight
which the method applies are also discussed.
(denoted as FC/W), and the traction force from the sheave re-
Introduction
sulting from the inertia of the drive (denoted as FT).
One of the most onerous requirements of the LG1 is the
The resultant force on the car would be: Resultant
carrying out of a full-load rated speed test on the safety
Force = FSG -FP/L-FC + FC/W - FT Continued S
gear. There is always concern about the damage that
could take place to lifts from such a test. The so-called
TÜV method uses a software tool that allows prediction Inertia of
rotating masses
of the results of the fully loaded test based on measurements FT
during a no-load test. LG1 in fact does allow alteration to
some tests, provided a risk assessment is carried out:
“In order to determine which examinations and tests should
be carried out and with what frequency, the installation
in question should be the subject of a risk assessment FC/W -FT
FC/W
that includes consideration of design, condition, usage of the
lift, relevant component manufacturer’s recommendations.
The results of the risk assessment may necessitate variations Car

to the nature of the examinations and tests described later in

Passenger/Load
this document and to the frequency with which they are
performed.” (clause 3.1.1 of [6]).
This article will set out to explain what the predictive
Counterweight
method is and the theory on which it is based. It will then
outline the advantages of using no-load tests during the FP/L
LG1 tests. And finally it discusses results from a number Fc FSG

of site tests, in order to give further confidence in the oper-

ation of the predictive method. Figure 1: General force diagram for a lift under safety gear application

94 Educational Focus Compilation

02-10-1 pg90-98 2/11/09 10:04 AM Page 95
EDUCATIONAL FOCUS: ELEVATOR SAFETIES AND GOVERNORS
The derivation of the general case equation is contained
in Appendix B. The derivation of the two special case
equations is contained in Appendix C. These equations
are necessary in order to understand the derivation of the
so-called TÜV method, introduced in the next section,
and which is pivotal to the argument of this method.
The TÜV Method Masses and Its Application
In 1990, the TÜV in Germany developed a system called
the ADIASYSTEM [1,2,3 & 4], which is basically a computer-
aided system for lift testing. Although the core of the system
is the measurement of the deceleration caused by safety gear
application, it also has some other features. These include,
among others, measurement of traction and door pressure.
The method attempts to do away with the use of loads
during the safety gear test. It carries out a measurement
during no-load application, and infers what the value at
free fall full-load would be. The method was formally approved
by the German Lift Committee in 1992, and is now used
in about six European countries [4] and has been trialed in
Canada [7]. Up to June 1999, 650,000 lifts had been tested
by ADIASYSTEM in Germany [4]. It is interesting to note
that the main motivation for developing this tool in Ger-
many is the existence of a statutory requirement of the
German Lift Safety Code (TRA), which stipulates a biennial
safety gear full-load test [4]. The method relies on two
major and two minor assumptions:
1. The progressive safety gear force, which is generated
by friction, is load independent.
2. During a no-load application of the safety gear, the ef-
fect of the counterweight and the traction force from the
drive sheave can be eliminated, as the rope would be
slack. This would be caused by the counterweight “jump-
ing” or “bouncing” when the safety gear applies. It is as-
sumed that the rope would stay slack during the full dura-
tion of the deceleration of the empty car to a full stop. This
assumption relies on the fact, that at a speed of 1mps, and
assuming a deceleration of around 1g caused by the safety
gear, the duration of the deceleration is around 100 milli-
seconds. The only case where we can be assured that the rope
is slack is if the resultant deceleration is more than 1g. This is
because the counterweight is decelerating under gravity at 1g.
So if the car accelerates at more that 1g, then its speed
becomes slower than that of the counterweight, and the rope
thus becomes slack. The problem with the second assumption
is that when we are testing a lift which has a rated speed which
is relatively high (e.g., 4mps), the full duration will be much
more that 100 milliseconds (in this case 400 milliseconds
assuming a deceleration of 1g). What the TÜV method does to
overcome this problem is to carry out the no-load test at a
reduced speed, in order to reduce the duration of the decel-
eration phase. As an example, in the British Columbia study
described in [7], a 2mps lift is tested at 1mps for these reasons.
This leads us to the third assumption.
3. The third assumption, which the method makes when
testing higher speed lifts, is that the safety gear force (fric-
tional force) is independent of speed. This is not completely
true [5]. Although friction is broadly constant, there is
nevertheless some dependence on speed.
4. The fourth point is not so much an assumption as much as
it is a simplification for measurement purposes. The method
when reading off the deceleration from recorded graph, tries to
“fit” a best “straight” line to the deceleration curve.
The last point becomes clearer when looking at a sample
curve taken from TÜV literature [2]. The curve in Figure 2
shows logged data of the acceleration in the vertical direc-
tion, using a data logger. The acceleration is integrated to
produce a speed curve. The operator then has to move two
vertical cursors on the computer screen, to identify the
start and the end of the safety gear operation (denoted as
the upper and lower limits respectively in the figure). The
cursors are placed so that they fit the best line of decelera-
tion. Once that has happened, the software automatically
Elevator Safeties and Governors
calculates and displays the following:
1. Lower limit (in milliseconds): This represents the start
of the deceleration caused by the safety gear.
2. Upper limit (in milliseconds): This represents the end of
the deceleration caused by the safety gear.
3. The average acceleration between these two times, in mps2,
which is referred to as “a_empty” in the figure. This is basically
a measured value. It represents the average measured decel-
eration during the safety gear application with an empty car.
4. The predicted (or calculated) deceleration that the car
and the full load would undergo in the case of a true free
fall (i.e., suspension failure) in mps2. This is denoted as
“a_loaded” in the diagram. This value is the most impor-
tant result from the safety gear test. The theory behind it
is discussed later in this section.
The full derivation of the equation used for this method
is contained in Appendix C. It relies heavily on the first
two assumptions mentioned at the beginning of this sec-
tion. Using these two assumptions, we see that the force
from the safety gear is the same at no-load and full-load
free-fall conditions and that we can ignore the effect of
the rope during the no-load safety gear application. This
-a
892 lower limit 256 upper limit 294 a_empty [mps2] 40
time (msec)
a_loaded [mps2] 12
Figure 2: A speed/acceleration curve illustrating the TÜV method (repro-
duced from [2])
Educational Focus Compilation 95
02-10-1 pg90-98 2/11/09 10:04 AM Page 96

EDUCATIONAL FOCUS: ELEVATOR SAFETIES AND GOVERNORS

gives us the important equation Equation 6 derived in
Appendix C):
aNL – g x Rm
aFFFL = –––––––––––––
1 + Rm
mP/L
where: Rm = –––––
mc
mP/L is the mass of the passengers/load in kilograms,
mC is the mass of the car in kilograms,
aNL is the no load deceleration during a safety gear
application in mps2,
aFFFL is the deceleration during a safety gear applica-
tion in free fall conditions in mps2, and
g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81mps2).
The interesting point to note is that the formula relies
only on the ratio of the mass of passengers/load to the
mass of the car, and not on their absolute values.
Accepting the four assumptions given at the beginning of
this section, we can see that the method gives a very simple
Elevator Safeties and Governors
The important word to note here is free fall. A full-load
test at rated speed with the suspension intact does not nec-
essarily provide the worst case scenario. So there is an
(6) extra benefit and further assurance using the TÜV method.
Site Test Results
In this section, some practical results are reviewed and
compared to the theoretical expected values predicted by
the TÜV method.
The Canadian Study
During the end of 1996, the Safety Engineering Services
Division of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing of
British Columbia carried out a study to look into the possi-
bility of using the TÜV method to obviate the need to use
weights during the safety gear tests. The results have been
published in a report issued by TÜV [7]. Most of the tests
were carried out with an empty car, and only one test was
carried out in the cases of both empty and fully loaded car.
All the results for the cars with progressive safety gears
have been extracted. The six lifts have been denoted with

and practical tool to predict the free-fall full-load deceleration the arbitrary letters A to F. All lifts, except lift E, were only
under a safety gear application by just knowing the relative tested in the empty car condition. Lift E, had two tests:
mass of the car and full load, and making one measurement of One with an empty car and one with a fully loaded car.
acceleration during a safety gear application on an empty car. Nevertheless, for completeness, the results for all six lifts
Motivation and Benefit for Using the TüV Method have been tabulated in Table 1.
There are two main reasons for Table 1: Summary of Results from the British Columbia Study [7].
using the TÜV method, when doing Lift Rated Car Ratio Speed a_measured_ a_free fall a_measured
safety gear tests and when carrying out Load mass Rm empty calculated** full load
LG1 [6] inspections.
[kg] [mps] [mps2] [mps2] [mps2]
1. The first and most obvious reason is the
[kg]
possible damage that the full-load, full-
speed safety gear test could cause to the A 907 1813 0.50 1.25 8.76 2(2.57) N/A
lift components. It is known that such a B 680 1613 0.42 1.25 10.01 4(4.15) N/A
test does stress the main components in C 816 1804 0.45 1 7.88 2(2.39) N/A
the lift system, especially the gearbox.
D 1588 3270 0.49 1.5 18.91 9(9.47) N/A
2. The second main reason is the dif-
E 1011 2023 0.50 2 (1)* 13.2 5(5.53) 5.36
ference to timescales that the use of
weights has on a program of testing. F 1590 2900 0.55 4 (1.5)* 9.73 2(2.79) N/A
This is due to the difficulty of carrying and moving the *The no-load test was carried out at a reduced speed to ensure that the duration
weights, and the lack of storage space in some locations. was short enough to justify the assumption of slack rope.
**The value of a calculation by the ADIASYSTEM truncates the acceleration value to
This is not just an inconvenience, but it also presents a
a whole number. For completeness, I have added the exact value to two decimal
risk to the travelling public in delaying the LG1 tests, due places in brackets, based on Equation 6 shown earlier, and derived in Appendix C.
to a longer program. As mentioned earlier, only the ratio of the full load and
In addition to the motivation to use the TÜV method the car mass are needed in the formula for calculating the
and eliminate weight, there is actually an extra benefit predicted deceleration under free-fall full-load conditions
from using the method. It gives an extra result, which the (Equation 6 shown earlier and derived in Appendix C). So
full-load test does not give. It can predict what the free-fall the ratio of the two values is shown in a dedicated column.
full-load deceleration would be. This, in fact, is necessary A reduced speed test was carried out in the case of E and
to fully comply with the requirements of EN 81-1 clause F, in order to ensure that the counterweight and the traction
9.8.4 [8]: “For progressive safety gear, the average retardation effects could be cancelled.
in the case of free fall with rated load in the car shall lie The only comparison that could be done is the result of
between 0.2g and 1g.” case E, as that is the only one that had a no-load test in

96 Educational Focus Compilation

02-10-1 pg90-98 2/11/09 10:04 AM Page 97

EDUCATIONAL FOCUS: ELEVATOR SAFETIES AND GOVERNORS

addition to the full-load test. The numbers compare very 2. From that figure, the calculated free-fall full-load deceler-
well: 5.53 mps2 calculated, compared to 5.36 mps2 measured. ation value is (based on Equation 6 from Appendix C):
This shows that in this case, the effect of the counter- aNL – g x Rm 11.16 – 9.81 x 0.57
weight had been completely eliminated by the traction force aFFFL = ––––––––––– = ––––––––––––––––––––– = 3.54 mps2
1 + Rm 1.57
in the case of the full-load test. Examining the general case
Comparing this value with the value measured during
equation (derived in Appendix B, denoted Equation 1:
the full-load test, which is 6.62mps2, we note that the full-
FSG -FP/L -Fc +Fc/w -FT = aFL x(mP/L + mc ) . . .(1)
load test measured value is higher than the free-fall value.
As the result for this was identical to the free-fall case,
This points to the fact that the counterweight is assisting
we conclude that during a full-load safety gear applica-
the safety gear in retarding the fully loaded car, and that
tion: Fc/w = FT . In other words, the effect of the counter-
the counterweight effect has not been eliminated by the
weight is cancelled by the effect of the traction sheave force.
traction force from the sheave, as was the case of lift E in
This is obviously a special case, and it is not always the
the British Columbia project. In fact, the predicted figure by
case in all lifts that the force from the counterweight will be
the ADIASYSTEM is the worst case figure and is the figure
equal to the traction force from the sheave caused by the
needed to comply with the requirements of EN 81-1.
drive inertia.
Conclusions
Heavy-Duty Lift Results
The LG1 tests stipulate that a full-load rated speed test is car-
A no-load and full-load safety gear test was carried out
ried out on the safety gear, but allows the use of risk assess-
on a heavy-duty lift, during an LG1 test. The results and
ment to alter the tests or their frequency. There are concerns
parameters for the lifts and the test are tabulated Table 2.
regarding carrying out these tests for the
Table 2: Summary of Results from Heavy-duty Lift Test

Elevator Safeties and Governors

following reasons:
Parameters Rated Load [kg] 3750 1. The effect these tests could have on
Car mass [kg] 6570 the lift components, in terms of long-
Ratio Rm 0.57 term invisible damage.
Speed [mps] 1.5 (1.32)* 2. The significant increase in the length
Measured a_measured_empty [mps2] 11.16 of the time of an LG1 program that in-
cluded the full-load test, due to the logis-
a_full_load measured [mps2] 6.62
tics of moving and storing the weights.
Stopping distance, no load [mm] 100
The TÜV method can be used to predict
Stopping distance, no load [mm] 200
the full-load free-fall performance safety
Calculated a_free_fall_full_load [mps2] 3(3.55)** gear by merely carrying out a measure-
a_no_load (from stopping distance) [mps2] 8.8*** ment on the empty car during a safety
a_full_load (from stopping distance) [mps2] 4.4*** gear application. Although the method
*Actual speed against rated speed. The speed in brackets is the figure used makes some assumptions, these assump-
in any calculations. tions only have a small effect on the accuracy of the results.
**The TÜV software truncates the number to the lowest whole number. The
Trials on the British Columbia project and on a heavy-duty
exact calculation to two decimal places has been carried out, and that is
shown in brackets. lift have shown that the measurement can give a reliable pre-
***These deceleration values have been calculated for information and compar- diction of the free-fall full-load safety gear tests deceleration,
ison purposes. They assume a constant deceleration and are based on the marks
on the guide rails following the safety gear application. The actual measured dis- in order to comply fully with the requirements EN 81-1.
tances have been reduced by the width of the safety gear block, which is 180mm. REFERENCES
The deceleration during no load was more that 1g, vali- 1. “ADIASYSTEM - a computer-Aided elevator DIAgnosis SYSTEM,” TÜV, 10/97.
2. “Computer-Aided Periodic Testing of Lifts with ADIASYSTEM,” TÜV Lift Serv-
dating the assumption that the ropes were slack during ice Seminar, London, March 1999.
3. “Computers and Safety-Related Lift Data,” Alfons Petry, Elevatori, September/
the no-load tests and thus the effect of the counterweight October 1995, pages 33-45.
could be ignored. Looking at the results from the heavy- 4. “Adiasystem Technical Dossier,” TÜV Product Services, June 1999, Issue number 01/99.
5. “Deceleration During Free Fall, Free Wheel and Emergency Stop,” Johannes de
duty lift test, the following can be noted: Jong, Lift Report, January/February 1998.
1. The no-load deceleration is 11.16mps2. As this is more 6. “Guidelines on the Thorough Examination and Testing of Lifts,” Safety Assess-
ment Federation, 1998.
than g (9.81mps2), it gives the confidence that the ropes 7. “Supplement to the Report: TÜV Adiasystem/British Columbia Project,” TÜV
Building Services Inc., April 22, 1997.
were actually slack for most of the time while the safety 8. “Safety Rules for the Construction and Installation of Lifts - Part 1 Electric
gear was applying. The duration of the safety gear appli- Lifts,” BS EN 81-1, BSI, 1998.

cation is 118 milliseconds, calculated from these figures and
based on an actual speed of 1.32mps. The fact that the rope
would have been slack validates one of the assumptions
required for the TÜV method, to allow the counterweight
and traction forces to be ignored during the no-load test.
Appendix A: Nomenclature
aNL deceleration during a safety gear application under
no loaded car with suspension intact [mps2]
aFL deceleration during a safety gear application under
full loaded car with suspension intact [mps2]

Educational Focus Compilation 97

02-10-1 pg90-98 2/11/09 10:04 AM Page 98
EDUCATIONAL FOCUS: ELEVATOR SAFETIES AND GOVERNORS
aFFF deceleration during a safety gear application of
the car in full-load free-fall condition [mps2]
L equation (1), becomes:
g acceleration due to gravity [10mps2]
mC mass of the car [kg]
mP/L mass of the load/passengers in the car [kg]
mc/W mass of the counterweight [kg]
Rm ratio of the full-rated passenger/load mass to the
mass of the car [ ]
FSG force of the safety gear [N]
FT traction force from the sheave on the ropes [N]
FC/W force due to the weight of the counterweight [N]
FC force due to the weight of the car [N]
FP/L force due to the weight of the passengers/load in
the car [N]
α counterbalance ratio [ ], where mc/w = mc + α x mP/L
Appendix B: Derivation of Safety Gear
Application Equations
In this Appendix, the equations for the general case of
Elevator Safeties and Governors
safety gear application, and the equations for two special
cases are derived.
The General Case
The general case is derived first. This will then be used for
the two special cases. The general case assumes that none of
the factors (discussed earlier) can be ignored, and that the sus-
pension is still intact (i.e., no suspension failure). Looking at a
free force diagram for the car and the passenger/load, we can
derive the following (based on Figure 1). The total mass is:
mT =mP/L+mc
The resultant force on the car (assuming a positive
value represents an upward force):
Resultant Force=FSG -FP/L -Fc + Fc/w -FT
Let us assume that the full-load deceleration under no
load conditions is: aFL (full-load deceleration in mps2). We
then get the following result:
FSG -FP/L -Fc +Fc/w -FT = aFL x (mP/L +mc ) (1)
The difficult item to calculate in this equation is the traction
force. This is dependent on two main groups of data: Data re-
lated to the inertia of rotating masses (which depend on inertia
of motor, gearbox, flywheel/handwheel, brake); data related
to traction parameters (profile of groove, angle of wrap. . . etc.).
No-Load Case
The no-load case is a special case of the general case,
for two reasons:
1. The load in the car is zero.
2. In general, the stop is relatively fast (in many cases
with a deceleration exceeding g). When that happens, the
ropes become slack and the effect of the counterweight and
the traction force can be eliminated from the equations. Gen-
erally the stop happens within around 100 milliseconds. This
time is short enough to be able to ignore the effect of the coun-
terweight, as it actually “jumps” during that period of time.
98 Educational Focus Compilation
Using both of these points, and assuming that: aNL No
load deceleration in mps2. The special case of the general
FSG -Fc =aNL x (mc )
FSG = aNL x (mc )+g x (mc )
FSG = (mc)x(aNL +g) (2)
Free Fall Case
The second special case is when the suspension of the
car fails completely, and the car goes into free fall under
the acceleration of gravity. We will assume that the car is
fully loaded. Let us assume that: aFFFL Free-fall full-load
deceleration in mps2. The equations then become:
FSG -FP/L - Fc = aFFFL x (mc +mP/L )
FSG =aFFFL x(mc +mP/L)+g x(mc +mP/L )
FSG =( mc + mP/L )x(aFFFL +g) (3)
The importance of these three cases and their corre-
sponding equations will become evident when deriving
the TÜV equation in the next section.
Appendix C: The TÜV Method Equation
The calculation for the TÜV method will now be fur-
ther explored in order to derive the equation used. Using
assumptions 1 and 2, we see that the force from the
safety gear is the same at no load and full load free fall
conditions, coupled with the fact that we can ignore the
effect of the rope during the no load safety gear applica-
tion, gives us the following (from Figure 1):
FSG = (mc + mP/L)x(aFFFL +g)= mc x (aNL +g)
➞ aFFFL x(mc + mP/L)+g x mc +g x mP/L =g x mc + aNL x mc
➞ aFFFL x(mc + mP/L)= (aNL x mc)-(g x mP/L)
( )
(aNL x mc ) – (g x mP/L)
➞ aFFFL = ––––––––––––––––––––––– (4)
(mc + mP/L)
Dividing throughout by mc, gives us the important result:
( (
)
)
mp/L
(aN/L) – g x –––––
mc
aFFFL = –––––––––––––––––
( mp/L
1 + –––––––
mc ) (5)
And if we denote Rm as the ratio of the passenger/load
mass to the car mass, we can see that the formula only relies
on the ratio of two masses and not on the absolute values:
aNL – g x Rm
aFFFL = ––––––––––––– (6)
1 + Rm
mP/L
where: Rm = ––––––––
mc
mP/L is the mass of the passengers/load in kilograms,
mc is the mass of the car in kilograms,
aNL is the no load deceleration during a safety gear applica-
tion in mps2,
aFFFL is the deceleration during a safety gear application
in free fall conditions in mps2, g is the acceleration due to
gravity (9.81mps2).
Reprinted from Elevator Technology 12, Proceedings of Elevcon 2002.