Dual Elevator Machine Coupling for High-Capacity Hoists

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Elevator machine material costs increase significantly with capacity increases and volume decreases, particularly in high-rise and heavy-duty applications, leading to high investment costs and challenges in sourcing and manufacturing.

Innovation Solution

A dual machine arrangement for elevator systems, comprising two small cantilever machines aligned in reverse directions with a flexible coupling and drive circuitry for synchronization, allowing for double capacity at a lower cost by integrating two low-cost machines.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Power

If a large machine is developed with 200% capacity increase, then the machine capacity is improved, but the material costs increase by up to 300% or more

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemachine capacityVSAvoidmaterial costs
Core Design Contradiction:
PowerVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The patent divides a single large-capacity machine into two separate smaller machines, each with standard capacity. This segmentation allows both machines to be manufactured using conventional, cost-effective processes while achieving the combined capacity of a large machine, thereby avoiding the exponential cost increase associated with developing a single large-capacity machine.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent combines two smaller machines into a unified dual-machine arrangement that functions as a single large-capacity system. The machines are mechanically coupled through sheaves and belts, and controlled through synchronized drive circuitry, effectively merging their capabilities to achieve the capacity of a large machine without incurring the high material costs of developing one.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

2Power

If machine capacity is increased, then the power output is improved, but the machine volume decreases leading to higher material costs

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemachine capacityVSAvoidmachine volume
Core Design Contradiction:
PowerVSVolume of stationary object

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of compressing a large-capacity machine into a small volume, the patent segments the capacity across two separate standard-sized machines. Each machine maintains its standard volume, avoiding the need to reduce individual machine volumes, which would otherwise drive up material costs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent transitions from a single-machine vertical capacity scaling to a multi-machine horizontal arrangement. By distributing capacity across multiple machines arranged in parallel with mechanical coupling, the system achieves large capacity without requiring extreme volume reduction of individual components.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

3Ease of manufacture

If two small machines are used instead of one large machine, then the manufacturing cost is reduced, but the synchronization complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemanufacturing costVSAvoidsynchronization complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent incorporates drive circuitry with feedback mechanisms that monitor and synchronize the operation of the two machines. This feedback system automatically adjusts the timing and coordination of the machines, eliminating the need for complex manual synchronization while maintaining cost-effective manufacturing of individual machine units.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary control system (drive circuitry) that manages the coordination between the two machines. This intermediary handles the synchronization complexity, allowing the individual machines to remain simple and cost-effective to manufacture while the control system manages the coordination overhead.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Power

If a dual machine arrangement is implemented, then the capacity is doubled, but the mechanical structure complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovecapacityVSAvoidmechanical structure complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
PowerVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent employs universal, standard components for both machines (motors, sheaves, belts) that perform multiple functions. The mechanical coupling structure serves both to transmit power between machines and to provide structural support, reducing overall complexity despite the doubled capacity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent uses flexible belts as coupling elements between the sheaves of the two machines. These flexible belts provide a simple, adaptable mechanical connection that accommodates minor misalignments and reduces the complexity of rigid mechanical linkages while maintaining synchronized operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #30Flexible shells and thin films

Data Source

PatentUS20240367940A1Dual machine arrangement
Publication Date: 2024.11.07 OTIS ELEVATOR CO
  • US20240367940A1 patent drawing
  • US20240367940A1 patent drawing
  • US20240367940A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A dual machine arrangement is provided for a hoist assembly of an elevator system. The dual machine arrangement includes dual machines, each comprising a motor and a sheave, which is rotatable by the motor, a coupling by which respective ends of the sheaves of the dual machines are connected and drive circuitry configured to synchronize reverse operations of the dual machines to raise or lower a load.