Finite Element Simulation of Elevator Car Frame Buffer Crash Using ANSYS, Altair HyperMesh and RADIOSS

by Loi Cheng An Engineering Project Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of MASTER OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Approved: _________________________________________ Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Project Adviser

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Hartford, CT May, 2011

 Copyright 2011 by Loi Cheng All Rights Reserved

ii

CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... v KEYWORDS .................................................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................. vii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... viii 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2 Background ........................................................................................................ 1 Problem Description........................................................................................... 3

2. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Geometry ............................................................................................................ 6 System Properties ............................................................................................... 8 Static Structural Analysis ................................................................................. 10 Explicit Dynamic Analysis (without Acceleration) ......................................... 11 Explicit Dynamic Analysis (with Acceleration) .............................................. 12

3. Results........................................................................................................................ 13 3.1 3.2 3.3 Static Structural Analysis ................................................................................. 13 Explicit Dynamic Analysis (without Acceleration) ......................................... 15 Explicit Dynamic Analysis (with Acceleration) .............................................. 17

4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 19 5. References.................................................................................................................. 20 6. Appendix.................................................................................................................... 21 6.1 6.2 6.3 Calculation of Buffer Material Properties ........................................................ 21 Expected Dynamic Behavior (without gravity) ............................................... 22 Expected Dynamic Behavior (with gravity) .................................................... 23

iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Structural C-Shapes Shape Used for Car Frame Analysis ................................... 8 Table 2 System Properties ................................................................................................. 8 Table 3 Car Frame Material Properties ............................................................................. 9 Table 4 Buffer Material Properties .................................................................................... 9

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Elevator System (Courtesy Otis Elevator) (Strakosch & Caporale, 2010) ........ 1 Figure 2. Car Frame (Courtesy ThyssenKrupp Elevator) .................................................. 2 Figure 3. Car Frame in Contact with Buffer (Courtesy www.servingotherdeck.com) ...... 3 Figure 4. Polyurethane Buffer (Left) and Oil Buffer (Right) (Courtesy Courtesy ACLA Werke, China Ningbo Xinda Group Co., Ltd.,)................................................................. 3 Figure 5. ASME A17.1 Required Static Analysis for Buffer Engagement ....................... 4 Figure 6. Dynamic Analysis without Gravity Acceleration .............................................. 4 Figure 7. Dynamic Analysis with Gravity Acceleration ................................................... 5 Figure 8. Pro/Engineer Model of Car frame and Buffer .................................................... 6 Figure 9. Pro/Engineer Model of Car frame and Buffer, Bottom View ............................ 7 Figure 10. Overall Size of System (in mm) ....................................................................... 7 Figure 11. Structural C-Shape (Courtesy http://www.engineersedge.com) ...................... 8 Figure 12. ANSYS Static Structural Boundary Conditions............................................. 10 Figure 13. ANSYS Mesh for Static Structural Analysis ................................................. 11 Figure 14. HyperMesh Mesh Detail ................................................................................ 11 Figure 15. Static Analysis Overall Stresses of Car Frame ............................................... 13 Figure 16. Static Analysis Peak Stresses of Car Frame ................................................... 14 Figure 17. Static Analysis Total Displacement of Car Frame ......................................... 14 Figure 18. Dynamic Analysis (no Gravity) Overall Stresses of Car Frame .................... 15 Figure 19. Dynamic Analysis (no Gravity) Peak Stresses of Car Frame ........................ 16 Figure 20. Dynamic Analysis (no Gravity) Displacement and Stress over Impact Duration ........................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 21. Dynamic Analysis with Gravity, Overall Stresses of Car Frame ................... 17 Figure 22. Dynamic Analysis with Gravity, Peak Stresses of Car Frame ....................... 18 Figure 23. Dynamic Analysis with Gravity, Displacement and Stress Over Duration of Impact .............................................................................................................................. 18

KEYWORDS
ANSYS HyperWorks HyperMesh RADIOSS FEA Finite Element Analysis Static Structural Analysis Explicit Dynamic Analysis Buffer Crash

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank Professor Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete for his help on this project. I would also like to thank United Technologies for their financial support of my education.

vii

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the project is to study the behavior of impact loading on an elevator car frame using static structural analysis and explicit dynamic analysis under different assumptions of boundary conditions. Using a representative elevator car frame, a static analysis of buffer impact was performed using ANSYS Workbench 12.1, where the maximum stresses and deflection were calculated. With the same car frame, two dynamic analyses were performed using Altair HyperMesh and RADIOSS, where the stresses and deflections over the duration of the impact were calculated. The stresses of the static and dynamic analysis were very similar, which indicates that both the static and dynamic methods are consistent in calculating stresses of the car frame under buffer impact. However, the dynamic analysis allows for a more in depth study of the behavior of the system over the duration of impact, whereas the static method only provides a single snapshot of the systems behavior.

viii

1. Introduction 1.1 Background

In a traction elevator system, the car is suspended by steel ropes, which are wrapped around the machines drive sheave at the top of the hoistway, as shown in Figure 1 (1). Electrical power is supplied to the machine to generate sheave rotation and vertical movement of the car. The controller regulates the power supplied to the machine to precisely bring the car from one landing to another. equipped with brakes to stop the car once its reached a landing. The machine is

Figure 1. Elevator System (Courtesy Otis Elevator) (Strakosch & Caporale, 2010)

Multiple mechanisms are in place to safely stop the car in emergency situations. An overspeed governor located at the top of the hoistway is connected to a set of safeties in the car by a wire rope. The pulley in the governor rotates a speed proportional to the velocity of the car. If the car moves beyond a certain speed, the governor activates the safeties, which stops the car. If the safety cannot stop the car before it strikes the pit, a buffer sits in the hoistway pit and reduces the impact of the car. Depending on the rated speed of the car, the buffer can be made of polyurethane, spring, or an oil and piston rod assembly (see Figure 4). It is designed to reduce the deceleration of the impact to not cause injury to passengers or damage the car frame and cab. The car frame is the structural part of the car and holds the platform and the cab that carries the passengers, as shown in Figure 2 (2). The platform is directly connected to the plank of the car frame. The plank is connected to the vertical stiles, which are

connected the roller guides and to the crosshead. The hoisting ropes are attached to the crosshead. Traditionally, car frame members are made up of structural steel beams. A strike plate is attached to the bottom of the plank. As shown in Figure 3, this strike plate is located directly above the buffer in the pit. The buffer and strike plate limits the damage to the car frame when it collides into the pit.

Figure 2. Car Frame (Courtesy ThyssenKrupp Elevator)

Figure 3. Car Frame in Contact with Buffer (Courtesy www.servingotherdeck.com)

Figure 4. Polyurethane Buffer (Left) and Oil Buffer (Right) (Courtesy Courtesy ACLA Werke, China Ningbo Xinda Group Co., Ltd.,)

1.2 Problem Description

To study the effects of a buffer crash load on a car frame, multiple finite element simulations are performed with different methodologies. Each methodology uses a different assumption on loading and boundary conditions, which leads to different results. 1.2.1 Static Structural Analysis The ASME A17.1 Elevator Safety Code requires a static structural analysis of the car frame under buffer loading. To account for impact, the normal static loads are doubled, as shown in Figure 5 (3). The analysis is the equivalent to a having a car with twice its normal weight resting on the buffer, which is fixed to the ground. This simplification allows the use of hand calculations to solve the problem. 3

2x Weight of Fully Loaded Car CAR

BUFFER

Figure 5. ASME A17.1 Required Static Analysis for Buffer Engagement

1.2.2

Explicit Dynamic Analysis (without acceleration)

The explicit dynamic approach is not required by the Elevator Safety Code. In this approach, an initial velocity is applied to the mass of the fully loaded car. As shown in Figure 6, the car moves downwards at a constant speed until it strikes the buffer that is fixed to the ground. Effects of gravity are ignored for this analysis. This approach assumes that the machine is capable of controlling the system to a certain degree during the impact, such that the car does not accelerate due to gravity.

Initial Velocity

Mass of Fully

Loaded Car

CAR

BUFFER

Figure 6. Dynamic Analysis without Gravity Acceleration

1.2.3

Explicit Dynamic Analysis (with acceleration)

In this final method, the mass of a fully loaded car moves downwards at an initial velocity, and is also accelerating due to gravity, as shown in Figure 7. This approach assumes that as the car frame comes in contact with the buffer, the hoisting ropes become completely slack. Without any rope tension to counteract gravity loads, the car frame is subject to gravity acceleration.

Initial Velocity

Mass of Fully Loaded Car CAR

Gravity

BUFFER

Figure 7. Dynamic Analysis with Gravity Acceleration

2. Methodology 2.1 Geometry

Using Pro/Engineer, a simplified car frame model is created. The car frame used has a size that is typical of a 3500lb duty system and is made of imperial structural steel shapes. Figure 8 shows a general view of the car frame. The uprights are made of structural C-Shape C6x8.2. The crosshead and plank are made of C8x11.5. The

platform stringers are C3x4.1. The shape of the C-Shapes used and their sizes are shown in Figure 11 and Table 1. The first number of the designation is the depth d of the section, and the second number is the weight of the shape, in pounds per ft. For example, a C6x8.2 has a cross section 6 inches deep and weights 8.2 lbs/ft. The

platform is 6mm thick steel and the strike plate is 25mm thick steel. The buffer is simplified as a cylinder with 200mm diameter and 300mm height.

CROSSHEAD C6X8.2

UPRIGHT C6X8.2

PLATFORM 8mm

Figure 8. Pro/Engineer Model of Car frame and Buffer

BRACE 6mm

STRINGERS C3X4.1 PLANK C6X8.2

Figure 9. Pro/Engineer Model of Car frame and Buffer, Bottom View

Figure 10. Overall Size of System (in mm)

Figure 11. Structural C-Shape (Courtesy http://www.engineersedge.com) Table 1 Structural C-Shapes Shape Used for Car Frame Analysis
Where used Designation Area A (in^2) 3.38 2.40 1.21 Depth d (in) 8.00 6.00 3.00 Web Thickness tw (in) Crosshead, Plank Upright Stringers C8x11.5 C6x8.2 C3x4.1 0.22 0.20 0.17 Flange Width bf (in) 2.26 1.92 1.41 Thickness tf (in) 0.39 0.34 0.27

2.2 System Properties

The car frame is designed for a net moving mass of 3175kg, of which 1588kg (3500lb) is the duty load, 579kg is the car frame mass, and 1008kg is the cab. The operating speed of the car is 1m/s. Table 2 summarizes the system properties used for all the analysis. The car frame is made entirely of steel, and Table 3 lists the material properties that are used.
Table 2 System Properties

Speed Duty Load Mass of Car Frame Mass of Cab Mass of Empty Car Mass of Fully Loaded Car

1 1588 579 1008 1587 3175

m/s kg kg kg kg kg

200 3500 1276 2222 3499 7000

ft/min lb lb lb lb lb

Table 3 Car Frame Material Properties

Car Frame Material Density Elastic Modulus Poisson's Ratio

Steel 7850 kg/m^3 200 GPa 0.29

Material properties of the buffer were calculated such that it the colliding car would decelerate at an average of 9.8m/s. This rate is the maximum that is allowed by the A17.1 Safety Code (3). Table 4 summarizes the properties used. Section 6.1

describes how these values were calculated.

Table 4 Buffer Material Properties

Buffer Material Spring Constant Equivalent Elastic Modulus

Spring 1221 N/mm 11.43 MPa

2.3 Static Structural Analysis

The static structural analysis was done with ANSYS Workbench (4). The model that was created in Pro/Engineer was imported into ANSYS for preprocessing. For simplicity, all components of the car frame are bonded together. Since this is a static structural analysis, the strike plate is also bonded to the buffer. Figure 13 shows the mesh used for the analysis. Solid mesh was used for the structural C channel parts and the buffer. For flat elements including the platform, braces and strike plate, a solid shell mesh is used. The maximum mesh size is set to 30mm.

Figure 12. ANSYS Static Structural Boundary Conditions

An acceleration of 2g is applied to the masses in the system. To account for the items that are not modeled, two times the normal duty and cab weights are applied as a load distributed over the top surface of the platform. A fixed constraint is applied at the bottom surface of the buffer. Figure 12 shows the boundary conditions applied to the system.

10

Figure 13. ANSYS Mesh for Static Structural Analysis

2.4 Explicit Dynamic Analysis (without Acceleration)

To perform an explicit dynamic analysis, the Pro/Engineer model is imported into HyperMesh for preprocessing (5). Figure 14 shows the meshed imported geometry in HyperMesh. The car frame is imported as a single solid entity and the buffer is imported as a separate entity, each of them are meshed separately. All the components are mesh using tetrahedral elements, with a maximum size of 30mm.

Figure 14. HyperMesh Mesh Detail

11

To account for cab and duty load, which are not modeled, point masses are created on the nodes on the top surface of the platform. The combined masses are equally distributed among these nodes. An initial velocity is applied on the all nodes that make up the car frames. A fixed constraint is applied on the nodes that make up the bottom surface of the buffer, as shown in Figure 14. There is an initial 1mm gap between the car frame and the buffer. The expected dynamic behavior of the system is calculated in Section 6.2

2.5 Explicit Dynamic Analysis (with Acceleration)

To setup the analysis with acceleration, the same model and mesh from Section 2.4 is used. Additional 1g acceleration is added to all the nodes of the car frame to account for gravity. All other loads and boundary conditions are identical to Section 2.4. The expected dynamic behavior of the system is calculated in Section 6.3. RADIOSS was used to solve the HyperMesh models. The program calculates stresses and deflections at predetermined nodal stability time steps that would minimize errors (6). The time step is related to the nodal mass M and nodal stiffness K of the system by the following equation:
t 2*M K

The models use for this project required 0.028 m/s time increments. The simulation was set to run for 400ms. Stresses and deflections were recorded every 0.5ms to an output file.

12

3. Results 3.1 Static Structural Analysis

As shown in Figure 15, the static structural analysis shows that the high stress areas are near the strike plate. Peak stresses are concentrated at the platform stringers in the region between the two planks. In Figure 16, stress shown in this area is

approximately 105-163MPa. Stresses decrease to about 37-75MPa as we move away from this region. The uprights and crosshead has very little stress at less than 12Mpa. The A17.1 allowable stress for ASTM A36 steel is 190MPa (3). The results indicate that the requirement is met. Figure 17 shows the displacement of the car frame. The maximum buffer

compression is 52mm, which consistent with the value predicted in section 2.2. The deformation of the car frame is very low relative to the compression of the buffer.

Figure 15. Static Analysis Overall Stresses of Car Frame

13

Figure 16. Static Analysis Peak Stresses of Car Frame

Figure 17. Static Analysis Total Displacement of Car Frame

14

3.2 Explicit Dynamic Analysis (without Acceleration)

As shown in Figure 18 and Figure 19, the areas of maximum stress are located on the stringers in the same location found in section 3.1. The maximum stress of 80MPa

occurs at 75ms, as shown in Figure 20, and the maximum deflection is about 50mm. While calculated deflection is consistent with the static analysis, the maximum stress is about half of the value calculated by static analysis in section 3.1. The results suggest that during a buffer impact, dynamic forces account for about half of the total stresses in the system, while static gravity forces (absent in this analysis) account for the other half of the stresses. The static method, which used 2x static loads, would therefore produce stresses consistent with a dynamic method where gravity is included, as demonstrated in Section 3.3.

Figure 18. Dynamic Analysis (no Gravity) Overall Stresses of Car Frame

The plot in Figure 20 shows the stresses and displacement over the duration of impact for the stringer elements between the planks. The plot indicates an oscillatory response in the stress of the car frame, which resembles a system of two springs in series where one spring is much stiffer than the other. The small oscillation is governed by the natural frequency of the car frame, which is much stiffer than the buffer. The

oscillations are somewhat consistent, with a period of about 10ms and peak to peak

15

amplitude of about 10MPa. The buffer acts as the softer spring and drive the major oscillation from 0ms to 150ms. After 150ms the car has rebounded off the buffer and the stresses have dropped to 0-10MPa, which comes from the vibration of the car frame. Because of the absence of gravity in the calculation, the car frame will continue to move upward at a constant velocity. Therefore, the results after 150ms are not considered to be realistic.

Figure 19. Dynamic Analysis (no Gravity) Peak Stresses of Car Frame

Displacement (mm)

Stress (MPa)

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Figure 20. Dynamic Analysis (no Gravity) Displacement and Stress over Impact Duration

16

3.3 Explicit Dynamic Analysis (with Acceleration)

Similar to the static structural analysis, this explicit dynamic analysis shows high stresses in the same region of the stringers between the planks, as shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22. Figure 23 tracks the stress and displacement of the two representative elements in this region over 400ms. Element E993987 has the highest stresses in the

system while its nearby element E1049750 has slightly lower stresses. The results indicate that stresses reach a peak of 155MPa at about 90ms, where displacement is a maximum of approximately 72mm. The displacement is greater than the value

calculated by static analysis, but is close to the 80mm predicted by the differential equations in Section 6.3, below.

Figure 21. Dynamic Analysis with Gravity, Overall Stresses of Car Frame

Similar to section 3.2, the plot in Figure 23 indicates an oscillatory response in the stress of the car frame that closely resembles a system of two springs in series. Again, the oscillations are consistent with a period of about 10ms and peak to peak amplitude of about 10MPa. The buffer drives the major oscillation from 0ms to 175ms. From 175ms to 380ms, the car has rebounded off the buffer and the stresses have dropped to 010MPa, which comes from the vibration of the car frame. At 380ms, stresses begin to 17

rise as the car frame comes into contact with the buffer again. The stresses are expected to behave in the same pattern shown from 0-400ms, since there is no permanent deformation or any other loss of energy in this ideal system. In an actual buffer impact scenario, damping forces in the system would eventually bring the oscillating system to a stop.

Figure 22. Dynamic Analysis with Gravity, Peak Stresses of Car Frame

Displacement (mm)

Stress (MPa)

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Figure 23. Dynamic Analysis with Gravity, Displacement and Stress Over Duration of Impact

18

4. Conclusion
The stresses predicted by the static method were closest to the dynamic method in which gravity was included. Both methods yield peak stresses in the range of

160MPa. However, the dynamic method yielded larger overall displacement than the static method. The results suggest that the static method is valid in predicting stresses but may not be accurate in predicting displacements for car frame buffer impact. The dynamic method without gravity (Section 3.2) yielded similar displacement as the static analysis, but the maximum stress was half of the static method. The lack of gravity forces in the system most likely under predicted stresses in the system. Compared to the dynamic method with gravity, this method without gravity does not seem to accurately predict car frame stresses and deflection under buffer impact. To further validate the analysis presented, an actual test would need to be performed. The car frame and buffer should closely match the properties used for the analysis, and the masses and impact velocity should be the same. Stresses recorded with strain gages located in the region of interest can be compared to the results in this report to show which method is the most valid. The actual deflection of the buffer can also be used to assess validity of analysis.

19

5. References
1. Strakosch, G. R. and Caporale, R.S. The Vertical Transportation Handbook. New York : John Wiley and Sons, 2010. 2. ThyssenKrupp. Vertical Transportation: A Glossary. [Online] [Cited: April 8, 2011.] http://www.thyssenkruppelevator.com/glossary.html. 3. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. A17.1 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators. New York : ASME, 2007. 4. ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Workbench User's Guide. [Online] April 5, 2011. http://www1.ansys.com/customer/content/documentation/121/wb2_help.pdf. 5. Altair Engineering. Hypermesh User's Guide. Troy, MI : Altair Engineering, 2009. 6. . RADIOSS 10.0 User's Guide. Troy, MI : Altair Engineering, 2009. 7. Frontal Crah and Airbag Deployment Simulation Using RADIOSS. Barman, Amlanjyooti, Kodwani, Ravi and Siddegowda, Nagaraj. 2008, Altair HyperWorks Technology Conference. 8. Crash Simulation of an F1 Racing Car Front Impact Structure. Heimbs, S., et al., et al. 2009, 7th European LS-DYNA Conference, Salzburg, Austria.

20

6. Appendix 6.1 Calculation of Buffer Material Properties

With an initial velocity of 1m/s, the distance the car frame would travel under 1g deceleration can be calculated, as according to the method outlined in the A17.1 Safety Code (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2007):
V 1m / s

(1) (2)

V2 S 51mm 2g
Therefore, in order for the car to decelerate at 1g, it will compress the buffer 51mm. By equating the initial kinetic energy of the car frame with the potential energy of the buffer at maximum compression, the spring constant can be calculated

m 3175kg
1 KE mv2 1588 J 2
KE PE

(3) (4) (5) (6)

PE

1 k * S2 2

2 * PE 1221N / mm S2

(7)

This spring constant also yields the same buffer compression under 2x static load

2*m* g 51mm k

(8)

The spring constant k is used to calculate the appropriate elastic modulus for the cylinder geometry used for the buffer.
L 294mm

(9)

* (200mm) 2
4
E

31420mm^ 2

(10) (11)

L*k 11.43MPa A
21

6.2 Expected Dynamic Behavior (without gravity)

The following calculations show the amount of buffer compression y(t), the velocity yp(t) and acceleration ypp(t) of the car frame over time. They are based on solving the following differential equation.
mass * d2y K*y dt 2

(12)

22

6.3 Expected Dynamic Behavior (with gravity)

The following calculations show the amount of buffer compression y(t), the velocity yp(t) and acceleration ypp(t) of the car frame over time. The same method from 6.2 is used

23