Inspiration from the Shard, London

Your author explains how the iconic tower offers innovative VT design ideas for high-rise office and slender luxury residential towers.

by Hongliang Liang

Introduction

The Shard, also referred to as the Shard of Glass, Shard London Bridge and, formerly, London Bridge Tower, is a 72-story skyscraper, designed by the Italian architect Renzo Piano, in Southwark, London, that forms part of the Shard Quarter development. Standing 309.6 m, the Shard is the tallest building in the U.K., and the seventh-tallest building in Europe. It is also the second-tallest free-standing structure in the U.K.

Background

MovvéO Ltd was responsible for the vertical-transportation (VT) design of the Shard, one of three award-winning designs the company earned from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH):

• CCTV HQ, Beijing: Winner 2013 CTBUH Best Tall Building Worldwide
• The Shard, London: Winner 2013 CTBUH Best Tall Building Europe
• Burj Mohammed bin Rashid Tower, Abu Dhabi: Winner 2015 CTBUH Best Tall Building MENA

I was involved in none of these projects, as I joined MovvéO in June 2014; at the time, MovvéO Ltd was called Lerch Bates Europe.

In July 2021, I was appointed as the VT consultant for a mid-rise office project in an East European country. This building is the Phase 2 of the project; I was also responsible for all of the detailed VT design of Phase 1 of this project in 2016-2017.

After undertaking numerous simulations, we initially proposed a few solutions, such as dividing the building into low-rise and high-rise zones. However, all of these proposals were rejected by the client for various reasons, the main issue being that the conceptual design, approved by the developer, called for only one dedicated goods lift, though based on its size this building would need at least two goods lifts. Given the design, if another dedicated goods lifts were added, a “domino effect” would occur, affecting the proposed structure and the mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP), etc. After finally following TRIZ* (see sidebar) and inspired by the VT design in the Shard, I conceived the solutions:

The Principle of Time-Sharing Dual Cars Goods/Passenger Lift

1 OFF MR 1800-kg lift with “dual cars.” It looks similar to a double-deck lift, but the lift would actually be a single-deck lift that would use a single-deck machine, safety gear, counterweight, etc. There are two lift cars fixed on one steel sling in one single shaft, but the loading into the two cars would never happen simultaneously. It actually is a generative design to my time-sharing service/passenger lift for the high-rise, mid-end residential tower that was published in ELEVATOR WORLD, August 2021.

The upper car would only have front entrances at the front main passenger lift lobbies, and the lower car would only have rear entrances at rear service-lift lobbies. The lift would have dual speeds: When working as a passenger lift with the upper car during peak times, the speed would be 3.5 m/s; when working as the goods lift with the lower deck, the speed would be 2.5 m/s.

For the upper car, the main lobby is at G, but for the lower car, the main lobby is at B01, where the loading bays are located.

In the first couple of years when the occupation is less than 80%, the lift would be put in goods service mode as a simplex service lift only; in this mode, only the lower car with rear entrances is operatable. Once the occupation reaches 80%, the upper car of the lift would be used with the other six passenger lifts during peak times under destination group control, with only the front entrances operable. The peak times of this building would be estimated between 8:30-9:30 a.m. and during lunch time on working days. During peak times, this lift would be put into automatic group control with only its upper car and front entrances operatable.

During off-peak time, this lift would be put into goods service automatically. Only the lower car and rear entrances are operable as a simplex goods/passenger service lift, one COP with push buttons in the lower car for all served floors except the topmost floor. The car calls would be activated via a card reader, and the LOPs would be full-collection above B01 floor.

This design also could be used for high-rise luxury residential towers, where at least one dedicated goods lift would be provided for each lift core. For a luxury residential tower, the upper car should always be used for passengers, with the lower car used for goods service. This may result in the lower car being unable to serve the topmost residential floor if there is a height restriction. If so, a two-floor service platform lift would be required for goods service between the topmost floor and the topmost-1 floor. The loading bay would be ideally located at B01 floor at the rear lobby, but it would also work with the loading bay at G.

Under destination control, all of the other passenger lifts can directly serve the car-park levels in the basement. As a result, no dedicated car-park lifts would be required in the residential towers.  

To avoid technical complexity, I think two independent controllers should be used for the two different functions. They would be used respectively for both of the cars with two sets of elevator shaft-position detecting devices. The two controllers would have a common variable-voltage/variable-frequency (VVVF) drive for different function at dual speeds.

Inspiration from Shard

My former boss, Adrian Godwin, used double-deck shuttle lifts for different functions in the Shard project: The hotel shuttle lifts ASL 14-ASL15 @ 6.0 m/s, upper deck for guests and lower deck for staff and guest’s luggage; another pair of double-deck lifts PL19-PL20 (1600 kg) per deck @ 6 m/s, where the public uses the upper deck and the public or VIPs occasionally use the lower deck for restaurants in the public zone.

But I don’t think a double-deck solution in this project would be compatible with the single deck destination control system. Even if it is compatible, the system would still have to be time-sharing, which would bring little benefit compared to a single-deck time-sharing solution. On the other hand, a double-deck lift is about 1.5-2.5 times more expensive than a single deck at the same capacity and speed, and the maintenance costs would be much greater, as well. It would definitely not be a good solution for this mid-rise office building.

Godwin was regarded as a technical genius by many experts in the industry. Even one former employee of MovvéO said he could be the best VT consultant in Europe. He had some “supertall” building innovations to improve the efficiency of the VT system:

1. “Shuttle” and “local” goods lifts
2. “Back-to-back” shafts with multifloor main lobbies
3. Time-sharing of lifts to achieve 24-h usage
4. Combining different uses of decks/entrances at varying times

It normally took me less than a half-day to reconstruct a VT diagram, but the VT diagram of Shard took me five days to complete. The review of VT design in the Shard gave me great inspiration to develop my skill/capability in VT conceptual design. Due to the “pyramid” shape, the floor areas in the high-rise zone sharply shrink, which results in the VT system being very difficult to design. The VT system in Shard is the most challenging of all of the projects I have seen. All of the above-mentioned innovations had been used in the VT design of Shard. The most impressive lift design is for the hotel/apartment service lift, which serves B03, 31 through to 67, the shaft between B03 and floor 31, which is blind (surrounded by other lifts). Without any emergency access door, the emergency rescue would have to be undertaken via another lift adjacent.

Ideas Learned From MovvéO

After MovvéO’s closure, I reviewed all of my projects undertaken from June 2014 to May 2019, and reconstructed the VT diagrams in order to study the conceptual design from other experts. I also collected (from open sources) and reconstructed the VT diagrams of some of the world’s tallest buildings.

There was a world-class, new VT development team in MovvéO; the members were Adrian Godwin, myself and my wife, Nancy Liang. I had been the design manager of MovvéO from 2014-2019, managing the whole CAD design center in the head office. I was responsible for all of the detailed VT designs in MovvéO during that time. Nancy joined MovvéO in May 2017 in a business-development role, but advanced quickly into VT traffic analysis, strategy, design and CAD drawings. Adrian alone did all of the conceptual design, but also checked our work. In the first four years, I was not allowed to directly communicate with architects. I was not allowed to touch conceptual designs, either. Instead, I created all of the drawings for Adrian to make his conceptual designs work well.

Adrian had an electrical background. He was not able to use CAD, but his conceptual VT designs had always been brilliant: His designs for lift control systems — traffic analysis application (Adsimulo*) and mobile phone app (AdInspect*) (see sidebar) — were at the leading edge in the VT consultancy industry. Adrian created many innovative ideas in VT system design. His mechanical designs included “Skytrak” (multiple cars in one curved hoistway), a concept that won the IAEE (International Association of Elevator Engineers) inaugural prize for “High-Tech” Innovation in 2010. This and other ideas, especially the ropeless “Vertrak” with multiple cars in one vertical hoistway (similar to TK Elevator’s MULTI but with a different mechanism) were very difficult (or impossible) to realize, as he underestimated the technical complexity and overestimated the market demand.

While I am a professional mechanical engineer with an MSC degree in Engineering Design and Its Management from Huddersfield University, I am also a good electrical engineer, the result of self-learning in China. I am confident to say that I am one of the top electrical engineers, but I can’t say I am a top mechanical engineer in the U.K. industry. It is possible for a mechanical engineer to gain electrical knowledge at home or at work, as such knowledge is based on logical thinking in mathematics and physics, as well as the understanding of advanced theories, but not vice-versa, as mechanical design skills and knowledge would be mainly based on special training in the college/university setting and practical experiences. I don’t believe self-learning from home could train a good mechanical engineer or designer.

I think Adrian’s electrical background is the main reason he was a master of VT conceptual design, as he graduated with honors in electrical engineering and electronics from Salford University. Electrical design is related to handling currents in electrical circuits, while VT design is related to handling the people flow/circulations in buildings. I feel VT conceptual design is very similar to electrical circuit design, especially conceptual designs for mixed-use supertall buildings with three stacks or more being very similar with integrated circuit (IC) design. This is why those pioneers in VT traffic analysis and VT-system design normally had a first degree in electrical engineering.

Because I was not allowed to directly contact clients at MovvéO, many old customers didn’t know me well. Since July 2020, I have done four projects for two different clients. I created two innovative solutions for the two clients, respectively, and am now very confident with my capability in VT conceptual design.

But there are some differences between Adrian and me, as I believe the key to engineering design is to well-deploy the function and qualities following QFD* (see sidebar), so I always use well-established technology to modify existing standard products, instead of creating a new product. I also focus on mid-range products rather than top range, because the mid-range are always in the greatest demand and have the biggest margin in the market. As consultants, we should use our experience and well-known/well-established technology to help our clients achieve success.

Conclusions

This application would be based on destination control that would not be appliable with conventional control. The dual cars lift may need dual controllers but uses a common drive for both functions.

This application should not be used in mid-rise/mid-end office buildings; at least, this application must not be used as the only goods service lift in any office building. This is a perfect solution for slender luxury towers where a dedicated service lift must be provided. For this kind of residential building, the upper car should always be for passengers and the lower car should be for goods. In some special circumstances, such as the restriction of headroom height, it may be acceptable to have the upper car for goods and lower car for passengers, but special measures must be applied to prevent leakage of any liquid from upper car to spoil the lower car. Always use the upper car for firefighting and evacuation functions.

This application is not suitable for mid-rise, mid-end residential buildings. It is for high-rise luxury residential buildings with a minimum of three passenger lifts and 25 floors, especially for slender luxury buildings.

For office buildings, this dual-car lift would not be the only goods lift in the building. The upper car would still be arranged for passengers, while the lower car is for goods. The loading bay should be located at B01, rather than G. This innovation could be patentable, as is for a new product rather than a new method or program, which are unpatentable.

NYC’s Central Park Residential Tower, topping off at 1,550 ft (472.4 m) with 131 floors, will be the world’s tallest residential building. Standing over the iconic Central Park at 225 West 57th Street, the tower is the second-tallest building in the U.S. and the Western Hemisphere. It may also be the most expensive condo project ever, with up to US$4 billion worth of apartments sold.

From the screenshot below, the price per m² of unit 61N is US$9.1 million. Divided by 1,435 ft2, it equals US$6,341/ft2, or US$68,234/m², making this the possible average price for this building. If one shaft for a 1000-kg passenger lift can be removed from the lift core, then the shaft space at each floor would mean at least 5.5 m² could be saved, increasing the total sellable value thus: US$68,000 X 131 X 5.5 = US$48.994 million.

Author’s Note

I firmly believe a good business should be open, innovative, internationalized and socially responsible — especially socially responsibile, as I believe a business can survive in the future only if it is useful and able to add value to society. For my own business, I also accept the above-mentioned points as fundamental values. As a VT consultant, for my own social responsibility and to encourage competition to prevent any lift manufacturer to register the idea as the patent, I wanted to publish this article so any lift manufacturer can use this idea to bring this kind of lift to the market to protect the interest of the users. My only wish is that, if any lift manufacturer uses my idea to supply this kind dual-car lift to the market, please quote my name on the product. Ideally, the name of the product would be “Liang’s Dual-Car Time-Sharing Goods/Passenger Lift.”

Adrian Godwin: was my mentor and my hero. I feel that I had been very lucky to have the opportunities to work under him and be involved in so many prestigious projects worldwide in MovvéO Ltd. I regard myself as the student of Adrian Godwin and the successor of MovvéO technology. Thus, this article is also dedicated to the memory of Adrian Godwin, chairman and sole owner of MovvéO, who passed away on April 30, 2019. With his passing, MovvéO Ltd. ceased operations.