Review

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2019, Vol. 11(4) 1–10
Ó The Author(s) 2019
Analysis on the influence of elevator DOI: 10.1177/1687814019835046
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
buffer clearance on elevator safety

Weimin Zhang and Wenxin Zhang

Abstract
Currently, a large number of elevator manufacturers do not consider the actual impact speed during the selection of buf-
fers or the calculation of guided travel, which creates safety risks. By analyzing relevant standard situations, this article
establishes equations to calculate the impact speed of the elevator car or counterweight, determines the corresponding
results, and carries out relevant test verifications. Moreover, the influences of buffer clearance on elevator safety are ana-
lyzed. Finally, the paper proposes new rules for buffer selection and a new method for calculating the maximum buffer
clearance between the buffer and car (or counterweight), which will improve the safety of elevators in actual
applications.

Keywords
Buffer clearance, buffer type selection, impact speed, guided travel, calculation analysis

Date received: 2 October 2018; accepted: 5 February 2019

Handling Editor: Vesna Spasojević Brkić

Introduction Papers2–5 proposed a method for calculating the

The distance between the counterweight (or car) and
buffer is an important parameter that is closely related
to the installation and use of elevators. Moreover, when
this distance is beyond a certain range, it can affect the
safe operation of an elevator. However, the number of
studies carried out on this topic is limited.
According to article 5.2.5.6.1.1 of EN 81-20:2014
Safety Rules for the Construction and Installation of Lifts-
Lifts for the Transport of Persons and Goods, the guided
travel of an elevator car (or counterweight) without com-
pensating ropes or an antirebound device at the highest
position shall be in accordance with the following calcu-
lation: counterweight on a fully compressed buffer
+ 0.035  v2 (or car on a fully compressed buffer
+ 0.035  v2), in which 0.035  v2 is half the gravity stop-
ping distance corresponding to 115% of the rated speed
of the elevator. According to article 5.2.5.6.1.2 of EN81-
20:2014, the value of 0.035  v2 may be reduced by
accounting for the speed at which the car or counter-
weight comes into contact with the buffer.1
maximum distance between the counterweight and buf-
fer; however, this method is based on the requirements
of EN81-41:2010, which states that the impact speed
should not exceed 115% of the rated speed of the eleva-
tor.2–5 Yan‘e6 proposed a viewpoint wherein the speed
at which the car or counterweight comes into contact
with the buffer may exceed 115% of the rated speed of
the elevator.6 Miralbes et al.7 focus on the impact speed
on physical health when the car hitting the buffer.7 The
authors of papers6,7 also established a simple equation
to calculate this impact speed. However, this method
fails to take into account the system acceleration of the
elevator in the process of selecting the buffer and calcu-
lating the maximum guided travel, which is inconsistent
Zhejiang Xizi Heavy Industry Machinery Co. Ltd., Jiaxing, China
Corresponding author:
Weimin Zhang, Zhejiang Xizi Heavy Industry Machinery Co. Ltd., Jiaxing
314423, P.R. China.
Email: 77142111@qq.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

with the actual situation. Moreover, the above articles,

and the authors of this article, agree that the speed of
the car (or counterweight) will continually increase
until it impacts the buffer when the car (or counter-
weight) descends from the lowest landing, but there are
different opinions on the calculation method.
Under the condition that the elevator car is at the
terminal landing at both ends of the elevator car, GB
10060-1993, the Code for Acceptance of Electric Lifts
Installation and Regulation on Supervision and
Inspection of Elevator (2002 Edition), requires that the
distance between the buffer and the car or counter-
weight shall adhere to one of the following cases:8

1. 150–400 mm for energy-dissipation buffers.

2. 200–350 mm for energy-accumulation buffers.

In both the latest edition (2011 Edition) of the Code

for Acceptance of Electric Lifts Installation and TSG
T7001-2009, the Regulation for Lift Supervisory
Inspection and Periodical Inspection, the abovemen-
tioned requirements for distance are waived, which
means that there is no definite standard requirement
for buffer clearance. Therefore, this distance is regarded
by many people as an unimportant parameter, and
many lifts are installed without due consideration.
Article 5.6.2.2.1.1 of EN 81-20:2014 requires that the
tripping of the overspeed governor for safety gear shall
occur at a speed equal to 115% of the rated speed and
less than the following conditions:
1. 0.8 m/s for instantaneous safety gears except for
the captive roller type;
2. 1.0 m/s for instantaneous gears of captive roller
type;
3. 1.5 m/s for instantaneous safety gears with buf-
fered effect and for progressive safety used for
rated speed not exceeding 1.0 m/s;
4. 1.25v + 0.25/v in meters per second for progres-
sive safety gear for rated speed exceeding 1.0 m/s.
As discussed above, if an elevator car free fall should
happen, the machine brake of the elevator should be
the first mechanism to stop the engine. If the machine
brake fails and the engine does not stop, the overspeed
governor should make the safety gear stop the elevator;
however, if the overspeed governor has a tripping speed
greater than 115% of the rated elevator speed, then it is
highly probable that the counterweight or car may hit
the buffer at a speed exceeding 115% of the rated eleva-
tor speed as long as the buffer clearance is sufficiently
large, which exceeds the allowed speed range of the buf-
fer and misuses the equation of guided travel.
Figure 1. The car falls from its lowest landing.
Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the pulleys or traction sheave represent the
speed factor of the pulleys (e.g. 2 = 2 times the rated speed of elevator,
that is, if the rated speed of elevator is 0.5 m/s, then the speed of
traction sheave of machine is 2 m/s).
The authors believe that it is worthwhile to bring
these points to the attention of the wider elevator com-
munity. Therefore, this article carries out an analysis
and discussion on whether the methods used for such
calculation and type selection are correct.
Calculation analyses
Analysis of the calculation of the system acceleration
When an elevator car without an antirebound device
descends from the lowest landing in response to abnor-
mal situations, the counterweight will ascend when it is
influenced by the pulling force of the suspension ropes.
Therefore, the car descends, and the counterweight
ascends with the influence of system acceleration until
the car hits the buffer. After the car comes into contact
with the buffer, the buffer’s reaction during the impact
will cause the car to descend without system accelera-
tion until the car comes to a complete stop.9 A diagram
that explains the dynamic motion of the elevator as the
car descends is shown in Figure 1. The situation where
the counterweight descends is similar to that of the car,
and a diagram that explains the dynamic motion of the
elevator when the counterweight descends is shown in
Figure 2.
Zhang and Zhang 3

where a is the system acceleration; FR is the frictional

Figure 2. The counterweight falls from its lowest landing.
Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the pulleys or traction sheave represent the
speed factor of the pulleys (e.g. 2 = 2 times the rated speed of elevator,
that is, if the rated speed of elevator is 0.5 m/s, then the speed of
traction sheave of machine is 2 m/s).
force in the well; gn is the standard acceleration of free
fall; H is the travel height; iPcar is the number of pulleys
on car side with same rotation speed vpulley (without
deflection pulleys); iPcwt is the number of pulleys on
counterweight side with same rotation speed vpulley
(without deflection pulleys); iPTD is the number of pull-
eys for tensioning device; mDP is the reduced mass
(related to the car/counterweight) of deflection pulleys
on car and/or counterweight side JDP  (vpulley/v)2/Rm2;
mPcar is the reduced mass (related to the car) of pulleys
on car side JPcar  (vpulley/v)2/Rm2; mPcwt is the reduced
mass (related to the counterweight) of pulleys on coun-
terweight side JPcwt  (vpulley/v)2/Rm2. MCR is the actual
mass of compensation ropes/chains; MCRcar is the mass
MCR on car side; MCRcwt is the mass MCR on counter-
weight side; Mcwt is the mass of counterweight including
mass of pulleys; MSR is the actual mass of suspension
ropes; MSRcar is the mass MSR on car side; MSRcwt is
the mass MSR on counterweight side; MTrav is the actual
mass of traveling cable; nC is the number of compensat-
ing ropes/chains; nS is the number of suspension ropes;
nt is the number of traveling cables; mm is the mass of
traction sheave; P is the masses of the empty car; Q is
the rated load; r is the reeving factor; vpulley is the rota-
tion speed of the pulley (rope speed).

From Figure 1, we can deduce the system accelera-

tion of a car while it descends from the lowest landing,
and the system acceleration acar equation is expressed
as follows

½P + Q + MCRcar + MTrav  Mcwt  MCRcwt + ðMSRcar  MSRcwt Þ  r  gn FR

acar = 2 2  3 ð1Þ
P + MCRcar + MTrav + Mcwt + MCRcwt + ðMSRcar + MSRcwt Þ  r + 3
2
r
6 7
6  r1  II  r1  II 7
4 P P 2 5
+ ðmDP ÞI + ðmPcar  iPcar Þ + ðmPcwt  iPcwt Þ + mm2 r + Q
i=1 i=1

From Figure 2, we can deduce the system accelera-

tion of a counterweight while it descends from the
lowest landing, and the acceleration acwt equation is
expressed as follows

½Mcwt + MCRcwt P  MCRcar  MTrav + ðMSRcwt M SRcar Þ  r  gn FR

acwt = 2 2  3 ð2Þ
P + MCRcar + MTrav + Mcwt + MCRcwt + ðMSRcar + MSRcwt Þ  r + 3
2
r
6 7
6  r1  II  r1  II 7
4 I P P mm  r 2
5
+ ð DP Þ +
m ð Pcar  iPcar Þ
m + ð Pcwt  iPcwt Þ
m + 2
i=1 i=1

Conditions:
I is for any deflection pulley on car or counterweigth
side;
II is only for reeving ratio .1;
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 3. The counterweight’s downward motion.
Calculation of the impact speed of the counterweight
When the counterweight descends from the lowest land-
ing of the elevator shaft, the car ascends; the dynamic
model of this process is shown in Figure 3.
It is observed from Figure 3 that the length of sus-
pension cable and the length of compensation chain on
the balance weight side decrease x, while the length of
suspension cable, compensation chain length, and the
length of moving cable on the car side increase x when
the drop distance of balance weight is reduced x. Thus:
1. The equation representing the relationships
among MSRcwt (the actual mass of the suspen-
sion ropes on the counterweight side), MSRcar
(the actual mass of the suspension ropes on the
car side), and x (the descending distance of the
counterweight) is expressed as follows
 1
MSRcwt = ðLSRcwr + R + xÞ qS  nS
ð3Þ
MCRcwt = ðLCRcwr xÞ qC  nC
2. The equation representing the relationships
among MCRcwt (the actual mass of the
compensation chains on the counterweight side),
MCRcar (the actual mass of the compensation
chains on the car side), and x (the descending
distance of the counterweight) is expressed as
follows

MSRcar = ðLSRcar xÞ qS  nS
ð4Þ
MCRcar = ðLCRcar + R + xÞ qC  nC
3. The equation representing the relationship
between MTrav (the actual mass of the traveling
cables) and x (the descending distance of the
counterweight) is expressed as follows
MTrav = ðLTrav + R  0:5 + xÞ qt  nt ð5Þ
where the variables are defined as follows: x is the
descending distance of the counterweight, which is mea-
sured from the lowest landing; R is the travel height
(the ascent) of the elevator; LSRcwt is the initial length
of the suspension ropes on the counterweight side when
the car is at the lowest landing; LCRcwt is the initial
length of the compensating chain on the counterweight
side when the counterweight is at the lowest landing; qS
is the weight of suspension ropes per meter; qC is the
weight of compensating chains per meter; LSRcar is the
initial length of the suspension ropes on the car side
when the counterweight is at the lowest landing; LCRcar
is the initial length of the compensating chain on the
car side when the car is at the lowest landing; LTrav is
the initial length of the traveling cable on the car side
when the car is at the lowest landing; qt is the weight of
the traveling cables per meter.
From equations (3) to (5), it can be concluded that
the actual masses of the suspension ropes, compensa-
tion chains, and traveling cables are subject to changes
during the counterweight descent, which indicates that
the system acceleration parameter is also variable. By
substituting equations (3)–(5) into equation (2), the spe-
cific equation to calculate the acceleration can be
obtained as follows
 
a1  d1  b1  c1
acwt ð xÞ =  + b1 ð6Þ
d1 c1 + d1 x
where a1, b1, c1, and d1 in the above equation are
expressed as follows
Zhang and Zhang 5

8 


>
> a = Mcwt P + ðLCRcwr LCRcar RÞ qC  nC  LTrav + R2 qt  nt  gn
> 1
>
>
> + ðLSRcwr + R LSRcar Þ qS  nS  gn r  FR
>
>
>
> b 1 = 2  ðq  n  g r  qC  nC  gn 0:5 qt  nt  gn Þ

>
> 2 S S n 3
< P + MCRcar + ðLCRcwr + LCRcar +RÞ qC nC + LTrav + R2 qt  nt
6 7 ð7Þ
 r + ðmDP ÞI
2
>
> 6 + ððLSRcwr + R + LSRcar ÞÞ qS  nS  r + 3
2
7
>
> c1 = 66 7
>
>   II   II 7
>
> 4 rP1 rP1
mm  r2
5
>
> + ð m  i Þ + ð m  i Þ +
>
>
Pcar Pcar Pcwt Pcwt 2
: i=1 i=1
d1 = qt  nt

The differential equation between v (the speed of the

counterweight) and acwt (the acceleration) are as follows The derivation process for the equation about the
speed and descending distance of the car is similar to
v  dv = acwt ð xÞ  dx ð8Þ those of equations (8) and (9), and the equation is
expressed as follows
By simultaneously integrating equation (8) on both
sides, the following expression is obtained pffiffiffi
vcar = 2
ð ð   sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 a1  d1  b1  c1 b2 ða2  d2  b2  c2 Þ
vdv =  + b1 dx ð9Þ  x+  ½lnðc2 + d2 xÞ  lnðc2 Þ
d1 c1 + d1 x d2 d2 2
According to equation (9), which operates under the ð13Þ
assumption of zero speed at the initial position, the fol-
lowing equation about the relationship between the
speed of the counterweight and the descending distance Evaluation of the impact speed of the counterweight
of the counterweight is derived
Because the mass of the car and the travel heights of
pffiffiffi each elevator are different from each other during the
vcwt = 2
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi actual production processes of elevators, all these fac-
b1 ða1  d1  b1  c1 Þ tors should be taken into account to accurately analyze
 x+  ½lnðc1 + d1 xÞlnðc1 Þ the influence of these parameters on the impact speed.
d1 d1 2
Equation (6) is a relational expression that includes V
ð10Þ (the speed of the counterweight), P (the mass of the
car), and R (the travel height) for the case where the
Calculation of the impact speed of the car counterweight hits the buffer.
Take a 3000 kg freight elevator as an example, the
The dynamic model of the car during descent is shown in speed of the counterweight will first be calculated in the
Figure 1. Because the theories on the buffer impact speed case where the counterweight hits the buffer, wherein
for both the car and counterweight are similar, the equa- the mass of the car is within the range of 0–6000 kg and
tion representing the relationship between the acceleration the travel height is within the range of 0–120 m.
and descent of a car can be expressed as follows Moreover, the speed under different buffer spacing
  (descent distances) are shown in Figure 4.
1 a2  d2  b2  c2 Figure 4 shows that the speed of the counterweight
acar ð xÞ =  + b2 ð11Þ
d2 c2 + d2 x upon hitting the buffer varies obviously under different
where a2, b2, c2, and d2 in the above equation are
expressed as follows
8 


>
> P + Q  M cwt + ðLCRcar LCRcwr RÞ qC  nC + LTrav + R2 qt  nt  gn
>
> a2 =
>
> + ðLSRcar + R  LSRcwr Þ qS  nS  gn r  FR
>
>
>
> b 2 = 2  ðq  n  g r  qC  nC  gn + 0:5 qt  nt  gn Þ

>
> 2 S S n R 3
< P + Q + MCRcar + ðLCRcwr + LCRcar  2+ RÞ qC  C + LT rav + 2 qt  t
n n
6 7 ð12Þ
> 6 + ððLSRcwr + R + LSRcar ÞÞ qS  nS  r + 2
 r + ðmDP ÞI 7
>
> c = 6 3 7
>
> 2 6     7
>
> 4 rP
1 II rP
1 II
5
>
> + ðmPcar  iPcar Þ + ðmPcwt  iPcwt Þ mm  r
+ 2
2
>
>
>
: i=1 i=1
d2 = qt  nt
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

a11 P + a12 R + a13

acwt ðR, PÞ = ð14Þ
P + a22 R + a23

where a11, a12, a13, a22, and a23 in the above equation
are shown as follows
8
>
> a11 =  g n

>
>a12 = gn  qS  nS r  qC  nC  qt  nt
>
> 2
>
> a13 = ½Mcwt + ðLCRcwr LCRcar Þ qC  nC ðLTrav Þ qt  nt 
>
>
>
>
>
>  gn  qt  nt  gn  Sb swt
>
>
>
> + ð L SRcwr  LSRcar Þ qS  nS  gn r + 2
>
>
>
> ðqS  nS  gn r  qC  nC  gn Þ  Sb swt FR
 
<
a22 = qC  nC + qt 2 nt + qS  nS  r +
2
2
3 r
>
>
>
> a23 = ðLCRcwr + Þ q
LCRcar C C  n + ð LTrav qt  nt
Þ
>
> mm  r 2
>
> q
+ 2 + t  t  Sb swtn
>
>
>
>  r1  II  r1  II
>
> P P
>
> + ðmDP ÞI + ðmPcar  iPcar Þ + ðmPcwt  iPcwt Þ
>
>
>
> i=1   i=1
>
>
: + ððLSRcwr + LSRcar ÞÞ qS  nS  r2 + 2  r
3

ð15Þ

Figure 4. Diagram of the speed of the counterweight upon Equation (14) can be used to determine the partial
hitting the buffer under different buffer clearances Scwt: derivatives for P and R
(a) Scwt = 400 mm, (b) Scwt = 350 mm, (c) Scwt = 200 mm,
8 ∂a ðR, PÞ
(d) Scwt = 150 mm. > cwt
= ð 22  11pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a a a12 ÞR + a23  a11  a13
ffi
< ∂P  P + a22 R + a23
a11 a a
1 P + 23a 212 a13
a ð16Þ
>
: ∂acwt ðR, PÞ = a22pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
22
ffi 22
buffer clearances, and the counterweight speed will ∂R P + a22 R + a23
increase obviously along with the increase in buffer
clearance; moreover, the speed of the counterweight By substituting the parameters of the abovemen-
upon hitting the buffer is significantly influenced by tioned elevator into equation (16), we can obtain the
different travel heights and the car mass. increment relation between the acceleration and either
From Figure 4, we are unable to distinguish whether P or R.
the car mass or travel height has a greater influence on The following is observed from Figure 5:
acceleration. Therefore, a relational expression of the
acceleration of counterweight is established as acwt(P, 1. The car mass has a greater influence on accelera-
R), where P refers to the car mass and R refers to the tion than the travel height.
travel height. In the case where the counterweight hits 2. The impact speed reduces along with the
the buffer, the equation is shown as equation (14) increase in the car mass and travel height.

Figure 5. Increment relation (a) between the acceleration and car mass and (b) between the acceleration and travel height.
Zhang and Zhang
Table 1. Half of the gravity stopping distance at different speeds.
Rated speed (m/s) Half the gravity stopping distance at different speeds (mm)
115% v (m/s)
0.25 2.11
0.5 8.43
0.63 13.39
1.0 33.74
The symbol ‘‘–’’ denotes that at this speed, the elevator cannot choose this tripping speed of the speed governor.
Table 2. Common buffer parameters.
Content
Buffer type
Permitted rated speed of elevator (m/s)
Maximum impact speed (m/s)
Analysis of the calculation of the gravity stopping
distance
When the counterweight fully compresses its buffer, the
equation to calculate half of the gravity stopping dis-
tance of the car is expressed as follows
V2
S = 0:25 
gn
where V is the rated speed of the elevator.
From the abovementioned analysis, it can be con-
cluded that there is a possibility that the impact speed
of the car or counterweight may exceed 115% of the
rated speed, but the impact speed will not exceed the
tripping speed of the speed governor, which is employed
to limit the maximum speed of the elevator when the
counterweight or car impacts the buffer at a high speed.
Moreover, various speed governor tripping speeds can
be applied according to EN 81-20:2014: 0.8, 1.0, and
1.5 m/s. Therefore, 115% of the rated speed and these
various tripping speeds are substituted into equation
(17) to determine the gravity stopping distance under
different speeds, and the results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that the gravity stopping distances
under various speeds differ from each other. In the case
where the guided travel satisfies the relevant standard
exactly or the allowance is small, there will be a safety
risk in terms of equipment damage or personal injury
when counterweight hits the buffer if the speed of car
exceeds 115% of the rated speed.
Test verification
To realize an accurate verification analysis, the authors
carried out a test on the speed of the car of an example
7
0.8 (m/s) 1.0 (m/s) 1.5 (m/s)
16.33 25.51 57.40
16.33 25.51 57.40
16.33 25.51 57.40
– – 57.40
HYF65 HYF80or HYF80 HP8112or H8113
Hydraulic Hydraulic Polyurethane
<0.63 <1.00 <1.00
0.723 1.15 1.15
elevator in the test tower of Zhejiang Xizi Heavy
Industry Machinery Co., Ltd., where the counterweight
hits the buffer under different buffer clearances. The
specifications of the example elevator are listed
hereafter.
As the rated speed of the example elevator is 0.5 m/s,
a variety of buffers can be selected for the test. Due to
various demands, the parameters of a common buffer
ð17Þ
suitable for the example elevator are shown in Table 2.
The impact speed tests under different buffer clear-
ances of 250, 350, and 400 mm are carried out, and the
test results are shown in Figures 6–8, respectively.
Figures 6–8 show that the acceleration of the car
tends to be linear before hitting the buffer. However,
after hitting the buffer, the velocity oscillates. In the test
process, the maximum speeds of the car under the three
different buffer clearances when the counterweight hits
the buffer are shown in Table 3.
From the test results, we can work out that the
impact speed increases along with the increase in the
buffer clearance, which can be summarized as follows:
1. When the buffer clearance is 250 mm, the impact
speed is less than or equal to 115% of the rated
speed of the elevator.
2. When the buffer clearance is 350 mm, the impact
speed is 122% of the rated speed of the elevator.
3. When the buffer clearance is 400 mm, the impact
speed is 146% of the rated speed of the elevator.
Although the buffer clearance can satisfy the old
Chinese standard mentioned above, GB10050-1993, it
is highly probable that the impact speed will exceed
115% of the rated speed of the elevator in reality. If the
rated speed of the elevator is smaller than that of the
example elevator, the ratio between the impact speed
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
(a)
(b)
Figure 6. Diagram of the (a) test acceleration and (b) test
speed when the counterweight hits the buffer in the case where
Scwt = 250 mm.
(a)
(b)
Figure 7. Diagram of the (a) test acceleration and (b) test
speed when the counterweight hits the buffer in case where
Scwt = 350 mm.
and rated speed will be much larger. When applying the
design in Table 3, whose impact speed exceeds 115% of
the rated speed of elevator, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. If the selection of buffer type is improper, for
example, this example elevator adopts the
(a)
(b)
Figure 8. Diagram of the (a) test acceleration and (b) test
speed when the counterweight hits the buffer in case where
Scwt = 400 mm.
Table 3. Maximum test speed of the counterweight when it
hits the buffer under different buffer clearances.
Buffer space (mm) 250 350 400
Impact speed (m/s) 0.49 0.61 0.73
HYF65 hydraulic buffer shown in Table 2, the
maximum permitted speed of the buffer cannot
meet the requirements under the counterweight
buffer clearance of 400 mm. Then, this improper
buffer selection will reduce the service life of
buffer, cause damage to the buffer, and lead to
safety risks such as equipment damage and per-
sonal injury.
2. In case that the maximum permitted speed of
buffer is not violated, if the relevant parameters
are calculated according to 115% of the rated
speed specified in the standard, then the guided
travel of the elevator will be insufficient to
ensure the safety of the elevator in case of acci-
dents,10 such as the guide shoe of the elevator
car running off the guide rail, equipment dam-
age, and personal injury.
In actual tests, the impact speed may be reduced by
some factors such as the inertia of the rope sheave, fric-
tion force of the well, and loss of efficiency; therefore,
the actual impact speed test data obtained will have
lower values than the theoretical data. Nevertheless,
Zhang and Zhang 9

there still exist safety risks caused by failing to comply For the descent of the car, the maximum value of x
with operating requirements. can be calculated as follows

Improvement suggestions xn + 1 = xn 
2
ða2  d2  b2  c2 Þ
Calculation of the maximum buffer clearance
b2
d2
 xn + d2 2
 ½lnðc2 + d2  xn Þ  lnðc2 Þ  Vbuf2 car
+ dð2 2ðcd22+
 b2  c2 Þ
b2 a
According to the results shown in Figures 6–8, if the d2 d2  xn Þ
buffer clearance parameter is not taken into consider- ð22Þ
ation, then the selected buffer and the guided travel cal-
culation cannot always meet the requirements in actual Equations (21) and (22) are iterated until the differ-
use and potential safety hazards may occur. ence value of 0.1 mm is obtained, and the equation is
For the case of buffer selections, the authors hold shown as follows
the view that the parameters that should be taken into
consideration include not only the counterweight (or xn + 1  xn ł 104 ð23Þ
car) mass and rated elevator speed but also the speed
of the car (or counterweight) when hitting the buffer.
Moreover, the authors believe that the Sbuf_cwt (buffer Calculation of the maximum guided travel
clearance of the counterweight) and Sbuf_car (buffer When calculating the guided travel of the elevator on
clearance of the car) must be adjusted according to the basis of the above analysis, the authors think that
equations (18) and (19) below to meet the requirements when the impacting speed exceeds 115% of the rated
in actual use. speed of elevator, the following conclusions can be
Using equation (10), the equation representing the drawn:
relationship between the permitted speed of the buffer
on the counterweight side and the buffer clearance of 1. If the impacting speed does not exceed the trip-
the counterweight can be obtained in the following form ping speed of the overspeed governor, half of
the gravity stopping distance shall be calculated
b1 ða1  d1  b1  c1 Þ
Sbuf cwt ð xÞ = 2 
 x+2  according to the speed of hitting the buffer, and
d1 d1 2 ð18Þ equation (10) or (13) can be referenced for
2
 ½lnðc1 + d1 xÞ  lnðc1 Þ  Vbuf cwt details.
2. If the impact speed exceeds the tripping speed
where Vbuf_cwt is the permitted speed of the buffer on of the overspeed governor, half of the gravity
the counterweight side. stopping distance shall be calculated according
Through equation (13), the relationship equation to the tripping speed of the overspeed governor.
between the permitted speed of buffer on the car side 3. Each elevator has its own car and travel height
and the buffer clearance of the car can be obtained variety, and thus, we should take into account
the most extreme case when calculating the
b2 ða2  d2  b2  c2 Þ
Sbuf car ð xÞ = 2 
 x+2  impact speed.
d2 d2 2 ð19Þ
2
 ½lnðc2 + d2 xÞ  lnðc1 Þ  Vbuf car
Conclusion
where Vbuf_car is the permitted speed of the buffer on
the car side. This article first establishes a theoretical model to cal-
The approximate solution of the above equation can be culate the impact speeds of the car and counterweight
obtained by employing the Newton–Raphson method and then performs simulated calculations for the
model. Subsequently, testing verification is conducted
f ð xÞ for the example elevator used in this article, and the test
xn + 1 = xn  ð20Þ
f 0 ð xÞ results are consistent with the theoretical analysis.
Through analysis, the authors draw the conclusion that
For the descent of the counterweight, the maximum the buffer clearance of the elevator has a substantial
value of x can be calculated as follows influence on the buffer selection and the guided travel
calculation. Therefore, the authors propose some sug-
xn + 1 = xn 
2
gestions for improvement and models for correlation
ða1  d1  b1  c1 Þ
b1
d1
 xn + d1 2
 ½lnðc1 + d1  xn Þ  lnðc1 Þ  Vbuf 2 cwt calculations to provide references for peers. In future
b1
+ dð1 1ðcd11+
a  b1  c1 Þ works, the authors will submit suggestions to the China
d1 d1  xn Þ
Elevator Association in the hope of revising the eleva-
ð21Þ tor standards to make elevators safer.
10
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This work was supported in part by Key
Technological Innovation Projects in Zhejiang Province
([2018]275)
ORCID iD
Weimin Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0107-8304
References
1. EN 81-20:2014 Safety Rules for the Construction and
Installation of Lifts-Lifts for the Transport of Persons
and Goods.
2. Pei Z. Inspection of the top space of traction-driven ele-
vator and the discussion on the allowable value of maxi-
mum buffer distance. Electromech Inform 2016; 9: 94–95.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
3. Zheng Y. Discussion on maximum buffer distance of
counterweight of elevator. Safe Technol Spec Equip
2018; 1: 36–37.
4. Tongxun Y. Buffer distance of counterweight of
traction-driven elevator. Safe Technol Spec Equip 2012;
3: 44–45.
5. Zhigang Q and Zhifeng L. Calculation method for the
maximum allowable value of the vertical distance from
the counterweight to buffer. Elev Indus 2011; 3: 34–35.
6. Yan‘e W. The requirement of the distance of the elevator
top for the distance between counterweight and buffer.
Lift Transp Mach 2005; 11: 64–65.
7. Miralbes R, Cuartero J and Castejon L. Biomechanical
response and behavior of users under emergency buffer
crash. Adv Mech Eng. Epub ahead of print 29 January
2015. DOI: 10.1155/2013/596340
8. GB 10060-1993. Code for acceptance of electric lifts
installation and regulation on supervision and inspection
of elevator (2002 edition).
9. Watanabe S and Okawa T. Dynamic behavior of eleva-
tor compensating sheave during buffer impact 2016. Phys
Conf Ser 2016; 721: 012015.
10. Yan’e W. Requirements of top spacing of tractive eleva-
tor to distance of counterweight buffer. Lift Transp Mach
2005; 11: 64–65.