EMERGENCY BRAKING SYSTEMS FOR MINE ELEVATORS

Thomas D. Barkand
U.S. Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center
P.O. Box 18233
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236
ABSTRACT

Investigation of several serious hoisting accidents identified machine brake

failure as the most common cause. The recent revelation of this potential
hazard has prompted regulatory authorities to require an additional,
independent, emergency braking system. As a result of this initiative, a new
generation of braking systems have been developed and applied to mine
elevators.
This paper will discuss the design and testing of an electrical dynamic
brake, pneumatic rope brake, and traction sheave brake. The effect of
compound braking on hoisting systems equipped with multiple brakes will
also be addressed.
INTRODUCTION
Mine elevators and personnel hoists provide a lifeline for miners at more
than 240 coal mines nationwide.[1] The hoisting system transports mine
personnel through an isolated corridor during routine operations or life
threatening emergencies. The potential risk of injury is great if the hoisting
system fails. Therefore, a safe, reliable hoisting system is essential to the
well being of the miners.
In coal mining history there have been two well documented investigations
of mine personnel elevators crashing in the upward direction.[2][3] These
accidents occurred on counterweighted hoisting systems when the
mechanical brake failed while the cage was empty. This allowed the
counterweight to fall to the bottom of the shaft, causing the car to
overspeed and crash into the overhead structure. The accidents were
initially believed to be isolated incidents. However, research covering a 5year period, showed there were over eighteen documented cases of
ascending elevators striking the overhead structure.[4]
Rules and regulations applying to elevator safety have come under review
in response to these accidents. The Canadian Elevator Safety Code and the
Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep Mine Safety have already revised their
regulations to require ascending car overspeed protection. This paper will
discuss new emergency braking systems designed to provide ascending car
overspeed protection.
ELEVATOR DESIGN
In a typical elevator, the car is raised and lowered by six to eight motordriven wire ropes attached to the top of the car at one end, travel around a
pair of sheaves, and attach to a counterweight at the other end as shown in
Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Mine Elevator

The counterweight adds accelerating force when the elevator car is
ascending and provides a retarding effort when the car is descending so
less motor horsepower is required. The counterweight is a collection of
metal weights that is equal to the weight of the car containing about 45
percent of its rated load. A set of chains are looped from the bottom of the
counterweight to the underside of the car to help maintain balance by
offsetting the weight of the suspension ropes.
Guide rails run the length of the shaft to keep the car and counterweight
from swaying or twisting during their travel. Rollers are attached to the car
and the counterweight to provide smooth travel along the guide rails.
The traction to raise and lower the car comes from the friction of the wire
ropes against the grooved sheaves. The main sheave is driven by an
electric motor.
Most elevators use a direct current motor because its speed can be
precisely controlled to allow smooth acceleration and deceleration. MotorGenerator (M-G) sets typically provide the d.c. power for the drive motor.
Newer systems use a static drive control. The elevator controls are designed
to vary the motor's speed based on a set of feedback signals that indicate
the cars position in the shaft. As the car approaches its destination, a switch
near the landing signals the controls to stop the car at the floor level.

Additional shaft-way limit switches are installed to monitor overtravel

conditions.
The worst fear of many passengers is that the elevator will go out of control
and fall through space until it smashes into the bottom of the shaft. There
are several safety features in modern elevators to prevent this from
occurring.
First is the high-strength wire ropes themselves. Each 5/8 inch diameter
extra-high strength wire rope can support 32,000 pounds, or about twice
the average weight of a mine elevator filled with 20 passengers. For
safety's sake and to reduce wear, each car has six to eight of these cables.
Elevators also have buffers installed at the shaft bottom that can stop the
car without killing its passengers if they are struck at the normal speed of
the elevator.
In addition, the elevator itself is equipped with safeties mounted
underneath the car. If the car surpasses the rated speed by 15 to 25
percent, the governor will trip and the safeties will grip the guide rails to
stop the car. However, the inherent design of the safeties render them
inoperative in the ascending direction.
In the upward direction, the machine brake is required to stop the cage
when an emergency occurs. Under normal operation the machine brake
serves only as a parking brake to hold the cage at rest. However, when an
emergency condition is detected, modern elevator controls rely solely upon
the machine brake to stop the car.
Several emergency braking systems are available to back-up the machine
brake and provide ascending car overspeed protection. These systems can
be installed on existing elevators. Three recently developed braking
systems are presented here for consideration.
DYNAMIC BRAKE
A new solution which is used in the United States mining industry is the
application of passive dynamic braking to the elevator drive motor as shown
in Figure 2. As mentioned earlier, most elevators use direct current drive
motors which can perform as generators when lowering an overhauling
load. Dynamic braking simply connects a resistive load across the motor
armature to dissipate the electrical energy generated by the falling
counterweight. The dynamic brake can safely lower an overhauling load the
entire length of the shaft. Dynamic braking is applied every time the
machine brake is set. A passive dynamic braking control can be designed to
function when the main power is interrupted. Dynamic braking does not
stop the elevator, but limits the runaway speed in either direction, so the
buffers can safely stop the conveyance.

Fig. 2. Passive Dynamic Braking

CASE STUDY:
DYNAMIC BRAKING INSTALLATION AND TESTING
Performance testing of dynamic braking has been conducted on several
mine hoisting systems.[5] Two case studies of service elevators that had
dynamic braking installed, and were recently tested, will be presented for
illustrative purposes.
History
An elevator accident occurred on February 4, 1987 at a western
Pennsylvania coal mine due to a mechanical brake failure. The
counterweight fell to the bottom of the 400-ft shaft, causing the cage to
overspeed and crash into the headframe. The cage was unoccupied at the
time of the accident. The elevator was out of service for several months due
to the severity of the damage.

The governor tripped and attempted to set the safety catches. However, the
wedge design of the governor jaws and safeties rendered them ineffective
in the upward direction.
Dynamic braking was installed on the main elevator drive to prevent a
reoccurrence of this type of accident. Dynamic braking was also installed on
the auxiliary elevator to provide the same degree of safety.
Dynamic Braking Installation
A passive type of dynamic braking system was installed on both elevators
servicing the mine portal. The main elevator was a gearless design and the
auxiliary elevator was geared. The equipment needed for the modification
of each elevator included a three-pole loop contactor, a dynamic braking
resistor, a single-phase rectifier bridge, and a drive fault relay. A simplified
schematic diagram of the dynamic braking control circuit is shown in Figure
3.
When the mechanical brakes were called to set, the M contactor dropped
out and disconnected the armature from the power supply, and also applied
the dynamic braking (db) resistor across the motor armature. When the
field power supply was operative, the drive OK (DROK) relay was picked-up
and the field was supplied with normal standing field current.

Fig. 3. Dynamic Braking Circuit

When a total power loss occurred, the dynamic braking resistor was
connected across the armature, the DROK relay dropped out, and
regenerative braking current was supplied to the motor field. A rectifier
bridge in the regenerative field power supply (not shown) insures the
generated amp-turns added to the residual magnetic field for either
direction of cage travel.
Dynamic Braking Tests
The dynamic braking tests were designed to demonstrate the response of
the hoisting system to various emergency conditions. The dynamic braking
systems were recently tested under the following conditions:
1. machine brake failure, power supply operative, starting at rest,

2. machine brake failure, power failure, starting at rest,

The armature current, armature voltage, field current, and motor speed
were recorded on a thermal array recorder during the tests.
Geared Elevator Testing
The auxiliary service elevator was geared at approximately a ratio of 20 to
1. It operates at 350 ft/min with a rated capacity of 4500 pounds. The
nameplate ratings of the elevator shunt wound drive motor were: 50 Hp,
1150 r/min. armature; 500 V, 81.1 A, field; 2.60 A, 89.8 ohms at 25 C.
The motor armature was powered by a three-phase, full wave, reversing
SCR converter. The motor field current was supplied by a SCR-controlled
single-phase, half-wave rectifier.
Test Condition 1: A sample recording for test condition 1, no load with 2.40
ohm dynamic braking resistance, is shown in Figure 4. The speed signal
shows the cage accelerated slowly to 140 ft/min without overspeeding.

Fig. 4. Test Condition 1: Dynamic Braking, Geared Elevator

Gearless Elevator Testing

The main elevator was a gearless drive roped 2:1. It operated at 600 ft/min
with a rated capacity of 9000 pounds and was 40 percent overcounterweighted. The nameplate ratings of the elevator were: 115 hp, 127
r/min (600 ft/min cage speed), armature; 407 V, 234 A, field; 17.1 A, 8.61
ohm at 25C. The motor armature was powered by a three-phase full-wave
reversing SCR converter. The motor field current was supplied by an SCRcontrolled single-phase half-wave rectifier.
Test Condition 2: A sample recording for test condition 3, no load with 1.60
ohm of dynamic braking resistance, is shown in Figure 5. An empty cage
with 40-percent over-counterweighted provided 3600 lb of upward cageaccelerating force. When the mechanical brakes were defeated, the cage
accelerated, the armature windings rotated rapidly through the weak
residual magnetic field of the permanently magnetized field poles. Thus a
small amount of armature current was generated, which divided between
the dynamic braking resistor and the field winding.

Fig. 5. Test Condition 2: Dynamic Braking, Gearless Elevator

The field current increased the strength of the magnetic field, which in turn
increased the generated armature current. This positive feedback
continued, causing the field current to build on the generated armature
current until a sufficient retarding torque was developed at 735 ft/min and
the car began to decelerate. The field and armature currents then began to
decrease as the car decelerated. The car slowed down to a steady-state
speed of 220 ft/min with an underdamped response.
The peak speed reached during the self-excitation process was primarily a
function of the time constant of the inductive motor field winding and the
acceleration rate of the cage. The inductance of the field winding was fixed;
however, the acceleration rate of the cage was a function of the load inertia
and the imbalance between the cage and counterweight. The maximum
acceleration rate for personnel load conditions occurs when one person is
transported. As more persons are added to the cage (up to the rated
personnel capacity) the load imbalance between the cage and
counterweight is reduced, thereby reducing the acceleration rate and the
peak speed.
Case Summary
These dynamic braking systems were designed to safely lower an
overhauling load, even under simultaneous failure of the mechanical brakes
and the main power supply. The simple dynamic braking system is an
economical method for providing ascending car overspeed protection.
ROPE BRAKE
A pneumatic rope brake has been developed by Bode Elevator
Components1 which grips the suspension ropes and stops the elevator
during emergency conditions.[6] A typical rope brake installation is shown in
Figure 6.

Fig. 6. Rope Brake Installation

The rope brake guards against overspeed in the upward and downward
directions and provides protection for uncontrolled elevator car movements.
The rope brake is activated when the normal running speed is exceeded by
15 percent as a result of a mechanical drive, motor control system, or
machine brake failure. The rope brake does not guard against free fall as a
result of a break in the suspension ropes.
Standstill of the elevator car is also monitored by the rope brake system. If
the elevator car moves more than 2 to 8 inches in either direction when the
doors are open or not locked, the rope brake is activated and the control
circuit interrupted.
The rope brake also provides jammed conveyance protection for elevators
and friction driven hoists. If the elevator car does not move when the drive
sheave is turning the rope brake will set and the elevator control circuit will
be interrupted.
The rope brake requires electrical power and air pressure to function
properly. The rope brake sets if the control power is interrupted. When the
power is restored the rope brake will automatically release.

Typically, elevator braking systems are spring applied and electrically

released. Therefore, no external energy source is needed to set the brake.
The rope brake requires stored pressurized air to set the brake and stop the
elevator. Therefore, monitoring of the air pressure is essential. If the
working air pressure falls below a preset minimum, the motor armature
current is interrupted and the machine brake is set.
CASE STUDY:
ROPE BRAKE TESTING AND EVALUATION
The first pneumatic rope brake was installed in the United States at a
western Pennsylvania coal mine on September 8, 1989. Since then, two
additional rope brakes have been installed. The largest capacity Bode rope
brakes, model 580, were installed on the coal mine elevators. The rope
brake installations were tested extensively by Mine Safety and Health
Administration engineers from the Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology
Center.[7] Several mechanical and electrical modifications were required to
make the rope brake suitable for mine elevator applications. A summary of
the findings will be presented in this study.
Pneumatic Design
The rope brake system is shown in Figure 7. Starting from the air
compressor tank, the pressurized air passes through a water separator and
manual shut off valve to a check valve. The check valve was required to
insure the rope brake remains set even if an air leak develops in the
compressed air supply. A pressure switch monitors for low air pressure at
this point and will set the machine brake as mentioned earlier. The air
supply is split after the check valve, and goes to two independent magnetic
two-way valves. The air supply is shut-off to the brake cylinder and directed
to port A while the magnetic valve coil is energized. When the magnetic
valve coil is de-energized, the air supply is directed to the B port which is
open to the rope brake cylinder. The air pushes the piston inside the rope
brake cylinder and forces a movable brake pad toward a stationary brake
pad. The suspension ropes are clamped between the two brake pads. The
rope brake is released by energizing the magnetic valve which vents the
pressurized rope brake cylinder to the atmosphere through a blowout
silencer on port S.

Fig. 7. Rope Brake System

The force exerted on the suspension ropes equals the air pressure
multiplied by the surface area of the piston. The rope brake model number
580 designates the inner diameter of the brake cylinder in millimeters. This
translates into 409.36 square inches of surface area. The working air
pressure varies from 90 to 120 psi. The corresponding range of force
applied to the suspension ropes is 36,842 to 49,123 pounds. Typically, the
force experienced by the ropes as they pass over the drive sheave under
fully loaded conditions is about 35,000 pounds. Therefore, the ropes
experience a 5 to 40 percent greater force during emergency conditions
than normally encountered during full load operation.
Dynamic Performance Tests
The retarding capacity of the Bode rope brake model 580 was tested at the
first mine site installation on three occasions over a six month period.
During the test procedure, the elevator motor armature current, field
current, armature voltage, speed (analog tachometer feedback) and rope
brake cylinder air pressure were monitored and recorded on an 8-channel
thermal array recorder.
Rope Brake Test: Approximately 100 deceleration tests were conducted
over the six month period. Increasing rope brake retarding effort was
observed during the final tests. The increase in rope brake effectiveness
may be attributed to the grooves worn into the brake lining by the
suspension ropes. After approximately 125 operations of the rope brake,
the groove wear-in becomes self limiting.[8]
Initially the rope brake lining is flat and smooth, grooves are worn into the
brake lining after the rope brake has repeatedly stopped the elevator.
These grooves conform to the contour of the suspension ropes which

greatly increases the braking surface area. The increased surface area
dissipates the heat more effectively and therefore, reduces the peak
temperatures generated when the brake is applied. Lower brake lining and
suspension rope temperature increases the coefficient of friction and
consequently generates a greater braking effort.
Another factor which would increase the braking effort was the cleaning
effect the application of the rope brake would have on the suspension
ropes. The repeated application of the rope brake over the testing period
would have stripped the dirt and grease accumulations off a majority of the
suspension ropes. If the rope brake was applied on a cleaned portion of
suspension ropes, the braking effort would improve.
Low Air Pressure Tests: A series of tests were conducted with the air
compressor motor disconnected from the power source to determine the
number of times the rope brake could stop the elevator from the stored
pressurized air in the compressor tank. The tests were conducted with no
car load in the upward direction. The elevator was stopped by the rope
brake twelve times from rated speed with the air compressor power supply
disconnected as shown by the dashed line in Figure 8. Then the air pressure
fell to 52 psi, the pressure switch tripped and opened the elevator control
fault string and prevented operation of the elevator. The pressure switch
contact was temporarily bypassed to allow further testing. The rope brake
was activated eight additional times and the corresponding air pressure and
stopping distances are indicated by the solid line in Figure 8. The rope
brake was activated at speeds ranging from 640 to 680 ft/min. The
stopping distances were calculated from the actual deceleration rates based
on an initial speed of 600 ft/min. As expected, the stopping distance
increased as the available air pressure decreased. The rope brake was able
to effectively stop the elevator in 82 feet with as little as 30 psi in the air
compressor tank. After the rope brake set, only 22 psi was available in the
air compressor tank. The slight distortion in the curve may be attributed to
the varying condition of the suspension rope surface and initial speed
fluctuations.

Fig. 8. Rope Brake Retarding Effort During Low Air Pressures

Compound Braking: The effect of compound braking is always a concern on
hoisting systems equipped with multiple brakes. This elevator is equipped
with three independent braking systems; the machine brake, dynamic
brake, and rope brake. Each system must be individually capable of
retarding the elevator. However, excessive deceleration rates should not
occur when all the braking systems are activated simultaneously.
Analysis of the data showed the greatest deceleration rates were observed
when the machine, dynamic, and rope brakes were activated with no car
load in the down direction. This compound braking produced a deceleration
rate of 13.8 ft/s2, which is considered to be a safe stopping rate.
To better illustrate the compound braking effect, speed curves from 4
separate mine site tests are shown in Figure 9. The first three curves show
the machine brake, dynamic brake, and rope brake independently activated
under no load in the ascending direction. The combined response of all
three braking systems acting together, under the same test conditions, is
shown on the compound braking curve.

Fig. 9. Brake System Response, No Cage Load, Ascending Direction

THE MACHINE BRAKE provides a linear deceleration rate of 2.5 ft/s2.
However, a slight fading of the braking effort was observed as a result of
the temperature rise in the brake lining during the final 400 milliseconds.
There is also an initial increase in speed while the overhauling
counterweight accelerates the car upward, prior to the machine brake
setting. The retarding effort of the drive motor is interrupted immediately
by opening the M contactor. However, there is an inherent 440 millisecond
time delay before the machine brake sets.

THE DYNAMIC BRAKING produces a retarding force proportional to the

speed, with an initial deceleration rate of 2.7 ft/2. The dynamic braking
system begins retarding the elevator immediately since the motor contactor
connects a resistor across the motor armature, instead of opening the
circuit and allowing the counterweight to accelerate downward. The
dynamic braking effort is reduced as the speed decreases until an
equilibrium is reached between the retarding effort and the load forces,
resulting in a steady state speed.[6]
THE ROPE BRAKE produced an inverse speed response and developed a
deceleration rate of 7.14 ft/2. This is the greatest retarding effort produced
by any of the three independent braking systems. The rope brake retarding
effort increases as the rope speed decreases to produce the observed
convex shaped speed curve. This brake also suffers from an inherent time
delay before actuation, similar to that of the machine brake, which results
in an increase in the initial speed.
THE COMPOUND BRAKING response produced a slightly "S" shaped curve
with an average deceleration rate of 9.09 ft/2. The initial 200 millisecond
deceleration response was proportional to the speed (concave speed curve)
as a result of the dynamic braking effort. After the inherent 200 millisecond
time delay in the mechanical braking systems, the braking curve exhibited
an inverse speed response as a result of the combined effort of the linear
machine brake and the dominant inverse speed rope brake.
Dynamic braking is an excellent system to assist the mechanical brake since
the dynamic brake limits the initial overspeed conditions without having a
significant compound braking effect.
Case Summary
Extensive mine and laboratory tests were conducted on the rope brake's
mechanical and electrical system to determine if the rope brake would
operate reliably in the mining environment to provide ascending car
overspeed protection. As a result of the testing and evaluation, several
modifications were required to enhance the reliable operation of the
emergency rope brake in the mine environment and during fault conditions.
TRACTION SHEAVE BRAKE
Northern Elevator Limited1 has developed and tested a device which would
fulfill the new Canadian code requirements. This device is expected to be
cost effective and be easily retrofitted to the existing line of Northern
machines and possibly others, as well.[9] The device is the "Traction Sheave
Brake"1 or, as it is nicknamed, the "Sheave Jammer." The Northern
"Traction Sheave Brake" assembly is mounted on the driving machine so
that its braking pads are in close proximity to the rim face of the traction
sheave on the opposite side to which the suspension ropes ride and the load
is applied as shown in Figure 10.
The sheave brake is not applicable to elevators with suspension ropes
double wrapped around the traction sheave and deflection sheave. The
device will engage and apply braking force directly to the traction sheave
rim face in either direction of the traction sheave rotation (car travel). The

applied braking force is sufficient to cause the car to decelerate and be

brought to a stop, from either a high speed or low speed condition without
any assistance from the machine brake.

Fig. 10. Traction Sheave Brake

The applied braking forces exerted on the traction sheave rim face are less
than the loading forces imposed via the suspension ropes. The "Traction
Sheave Brake" is held in the released or normal running position by a
solenoid coil which is normally energized. When the solenoid coil is deenergized, the carrier and frictional plate assemblies will be forced against
the traction sheave rim face by the action of compression springs. If the
traction sheave is rotating during or after the frictional plate has made
contact with the sheave rim, the frictional plate will be pulled by the
rotational movement of the traction sheave to the engaged braking
position. The movement of the frictional plate assembly during the

engagement operation, will be horizontal as well as vertical because of its

wedge-shaped profile. The vertical component of this movement, against
the calibrated disc spring sets create the force necessary for braking.
The compression stroke of the disc spring sets is controlled by the
horizontal stroke of the frictional plate assembly, which is controlled
(limited) by the stroke adjustment stop bolts. Once engaged, the brake is
self-locking and can only be released by re-energizing the solenoid coil,
then rotating the traction sheave slowly in the opposite direction from which
the device was applied until the device is again centered. At this point, the
device is reset and the required running clearance is re-established to allow
normal operation of the drive machine.
The device is equipped with a safety switch which causes power to be
removed from the driving machine and brake, when the device is in the
engaged position, to prevent further operation of the elevator equipment.
The power for the "Traction Sheave Brake" solenoid coil is supplied from a
battery backed-up power supply and controlled by a series of monitor
circuits, designed and arranged to de-energize the solenoid in the event of
either low-speed uncontrolled movement of the elevator away from the
landing with its doors open in either direction of travel or in the event of an
ascending car over-speed condition (where no counterweight safeties are
provided). Additional circuitry and battery back-up are provided to prevent
nuisance engagements due to power failure, door lock clipping, safety
circuit, stop button activations and/or other like occurrences. Circuitry is
provided to delay enabling of the drive machine during power-up to ensure
the device is in its normal running position and clear of the traction sheave,
before allowing the machine to start.
The sheave brake is the newest emergency braking system to be
developed. Otis Elevator Company1 has recently been assigned a patent for
a similar "sheave brake safety" design on December 18, 1990.[10]
At this time, a sheave brake has not been installed on a coal mine elevator.
Therefore, dynamic performance test data was not available when this
paper was written.
CONCLUSIONS
Elevator accidents have indicated a strong need to provide ascending car
overspeed protection. Three new emergency braking systems have been
developed to meet this need. The time has also come to review the current
elevator safety equipment, and incorporate these new technologies in the
field of elevator safety.
REFERENCES
[1]

"Mine Hoist Inventory," (MSHA Data - June 1988), Compiled by the

U.S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh Research Center.

[2]

W.J. Helfrich, "Island Creek Coal Company V.P.-5 Mine," MSHA, Mine
Electrical Systems Division Investigative Report No. C080978, August

1978.
[3]

[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

T.D. Barkand, "Investigation of the Accident and Installation and

Testing of Dynamic Braking on the Main Elevator at Duquesne Light,
Warwick Mine, #3 North Portal," MSHA, Mine Electrical Systems
Division Investigative Report C-052287-12, May 1987.
A17 Mechanical Design Committee Report on Cars Ascending into the
Building Overhead, ASME, September 1987.
T.D. Barkand, W.J. Helfrich, "Application of Dynamic Braking to Mine
Hoisting Systems," IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,
September/October 1988.
J.A. Nederbragt, "Rope Brake: As Precaution Against Overspeed,"
Elevator World, July 1989.
T.D. Barkand, "Ascending Elevator Accidents: Give the Miner a
Brake," IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, May/June 1992.
J.A. Nederbragt, "Report of Test Results" conducted by TNO-IWECO,
Delft Technical University, June 7, 1989.

[9] "Traction Sheave Brake" Elevator World, December 1990.

[10] Patents - "Sheave Brake," Elevator World, pg 108, April 1991.
http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/TECHRPT/HOIST/PAPER5.HTM