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

Background ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2

Problem Description........................................................................................... 3

2. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 6
2.1

Geometry ............................................................................................................ 6

2.2

System Properties ............................................................................................... 8

2.3

Static Structural Analysis ................................................................................. 10

2.4

Explicit Dynamic Analysis (without Acceleration) ......................................... 11

2.5

Explicit Dynamic Analysis (with Acceleration) .............................................. 12

3. Results........................................................................................................................ 13
3.1

Static Structural Analysis ................................................................................. 13

3.2

Explicit Dynamic Analysis (without Acceleration) ......................................... 15

3.3

Explicit Dynamic Analysis (with Acceleration) .............................................. 17

4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 19
5. References.................................................................................................................. 20
6. Appendix.................................................................................................................... 21
6.1

Calculation of Buffer Material Properties ........................................................ 21

6.2

Expected Dynamic Behavior (without gravity) ............................................... 22

6.3

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.

The machine is

equipped with brakes to stop the car once its reached a landing.

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

Depth

A
(in^2)

d
(in)

Web

Flange

Thickness

Width

Thickness

tw (in)

bf (in)

tf (in)

Crosshead,
Plank
Upright

C8x11.5

3.38

8.00

0.22

2.26

0.39

C6x8.2

2.40

6.00

0.20

1.92

0.34

Stringers

C3x4.1

1.21

3.00

0.17

1.41

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

Stress

(mm)

(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

Stress

(mm)

(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)

V2
S
51mm
2g

(2)

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

PE

1
k * S2
2

2 * PE
1221N / mm
S2

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

(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

* (200mm) 2
4
E

31420mm^ 2

L*k
11.43MPa
A
21

(9)

(10)
(11)

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

22

(12)

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