What Does Destination Control look like in practice? 2 Examples

Regular readers of our blog will remember this post, What are the benefits of Destination Control? In this week’s post we have provided two examples of Destination Control one in the form of ‘before and after’ videos and the other in the form of a statistical comparison for a lift traffic simulation of a theoretical building with 10 floors above ground and served by a group of 5 lifts.

Please watch this video. The video is a great example of the impact a Destination Control system can have on passenger traffic.

Here’s the second example

Lift traffic analysis comparison of Destination Control with Conventional Collective Control.

The two sets of results on the PDF above are for a lift traffic simulation of a theoretical building with 10 floors above ground and served by a group of 5 lifts.

The first page of each set of results details the input data used and it can be seen that in both the values used are identical except for the passenger loading and unloading time.  These have been reduced in the Destination Control simulation to account for the fact that typically people waiting in the lobby will gather outside their assigned lift rather than waiting in the middle of the lobby with conventional control and when stopping on an upper floor a number of people will exit together.

The Passenger Demand graph shows the passenger demand profile and is the same as the classic office up-peak template described in CIBSE Guide D with a peak demand of 15%.

The key results graphs are the “Queue Length”, “Car Loading” and “Average Wait and Time to Destination".

The Queue Length graph shows that during the 5 minute period with peak passenger demand the queue length likely to be experienced with a Destination Control system would be significantly less than with a Conventional Collective Control system which is operating on the point of saturation.

The Car Loading graphs highlight that the Destination Control system manages the passengers in a more efficient manner thereby reducing the maximum number of people in each lift during the peak compared with the Conventional Collective Control where the lift cars fill to the maximum allowed.

The Average Wait and Time to Destination graphs show that for this example the use of Destination Control would result in an average wait and time to destination approximately half of that which could be achieved with Conventional Collective Control.

In summary, Destination Control lifts have the capacity to move more people in a given time period than those with Conventional Collective Control though in some situations the average waiting time may increase.

Dunbar and Boardman is the lift, escalator and access equipment consultancy. Are you currently planning a project that will involve Destination Control? We would be happy to discuss with you. Give us a call on T +44 (0)20 7739 5093 or send us an email via peterboardman@dunbarboardman.com to start the conversation.