A Survey of Elevator

Group Control Systems

for Vertical Transportation
A Look at recent literature

Joaquín R. Fernández
and Pablo Cortés

E
levators (also called “lifts” in some locales)
are installed in buildings to meet the verti-
cal transportation needs of the building oc-
cupants. The total vertical transport capacity
of a building is a crucial factor in its success
as a working, living, or service facility. Elevators must
be easily accessible, readily available, provide quality
service, and be reliable.
Since 1945, the number of buildings of medium to
high height has increased considerably (see Table 1),
providing a strong impetus to the elevator manufac-
turers, who have been receptive to the inclusion of
new technologies. First, automatic cabins were devel-
oped, followed by hydraulic cabins. More recently,
digital equipment has been included, and control sys-
tems and traffic management have been studied [2].
The total cost of an elevator, which includes the
direct installation costs, the maintenance service
costs, and the indirect costs resulting from the space
it occupies (in the layout of the building), is too high
to tolerate suboptimal elevator placement or ineffi-
cient operation. However, elevators must be designed
and positioned to provide the required service at a
minimum cost. These opposite viewpoints result in a
compromise between the quality of provided service
and economic restrictions. This tradeoff between

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MCS.2015.2427045

Date of publication: 17 July 2015

38  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  August 2015 1066-033X/15©2015ieee

 The duty of the EGCS is to meet all
the demands by assigning an elevator to
each landing call (call made at a floor)
while optimizing several criteria.

economy and quality of service can be optimized in different ways; therefore,

elevator companies compete against each other by offering their own economic
and service models.
In 1979, the Otis Elevator Company developed the first elevator controller
based on electronic microprocessors, which greatly improved the flexibility of
the vertical transport systems that were already installed. By developing and
implementing new elevator group control systems (EGCSs), each with its own
dispatching algorithms, the competition between companies to offer the best
service increased. Such algorithms must address the different traffic patterns
that occur in a building, that is, up-peak traffic (the period in which people
move up from the ground floor or basements to the floors in the building),
down-peak traffic (the period in which people move down from different floors
to the ground floor and basements), midday or lunch-peak traffic (for a mix of
up peak and down peak at midday), and interfloor traffic for the remaining
periods. It is common to dispatch service calls by relying on artificial intelli-
gence algorithms, including genetic algorithms, tabu algorithms, fuzzy logic,
and neural networks, and some of the more relevant companies have developed
patents using such methodologies [3].
The high demand of building construction associated with the quantity and
increased size of buildings experienced in recent decades brought elevator
issues into the spotlight, but some argue that it could also have been viewed as
a harbinger of economic collapse [4]. The recent investment in the elevator sector
together with the lack of a state-of-the-art product was the main motivation for
writing this article. Surveys of the field of elevator control are rare, although
one exception is a study of the patent literature [3]. This article is broader in
scope, in that it reviews patents and the scientific literature together. In fact, the
main objective of this article is to serve as a reference for the sector’s framework,
summarize all the sector’s contributions and achievements, point out the main
background art—image licensed by graphic stock

deficiencies and drawbacks of previously conducted research, and suggest

some possible future research lines and developments.
The article contains several parts. After the introduction, the second part
defines an EGCS and the problems associated with allocating landing calls. The
third part describes the taxonomy of the different tasks and the functionalities of
image courtesy of pixabay.com

EGCSs. This is followed by a description of the literature related to capturing the

system data and the traffic-pattern recognition systems. The article continues
with an analysis of autocalibration, followed by a discussion of the main prob-
lems of car-landing-call allocation. The article concludes with a discussion of con-
structive solutions (such as double-decker systems) and the issue of optimizing
the quantity of the service.

August 2015  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  39


Table 1 Cities with the highest numbers of skyscrapers
(buildings taller than 100 m) [1].
City Country Number of Skyscrapers
Hong Kong China 2354
New York United States 794
Tokyo Japan 556
Shanghai China 430
Dubai United Arab 403
Emirates
Bangkok Thailand 355
Chicago United States 341
Guangzhou China 295
Seoul South Korea 282
Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 244
Definition of an EGCS and
the Landing-Call Allocation Problem
An EGCS consists of hall call buttons that are situated on
every floor, car call buttons inside of each cabin, and a
group controller. The EGCS is used to manage multiple
elevators in a building to efficiently transport passengers.
Assigning the landing calls is the primary task that an
EGCS must solve efficiently. This task is presented when a
passenger wants to travel from one floor to another and
presses the landing-call button on a certain floor. This pro-
cess is termed, in the vertical transportation domain, a
landing call. The duty of the EGCS is to meet all the demands
by assigning an elevator to each landing call (call made at a
floor) while optimizing several criteria. These criteria can
be service oriented, such as the average wait time (AWT) or
the percentage of calls that have a long wait time (also
called long-waiting call percentages, which are usually
defined as the percentages of calls that require more than a
given number of seconds), or oriented toward the prefer-
ences of the tenants, such as energy consumption prefer-
ences [5], [6]. The EGCS performance is measured according
to the values of these parameters. A snapshot elevator dis-
patching problem is NP-hard [7]. EGCSs are systems that
can be analyzed from the perspective of several criteria,
and in general terms, they are designed to satisfy each cri-
terion to a certain level. However, the optimization criteria
are often conflicting (for example, quality of service versus
energy savings) and are subject to physical limitations,
such as the acceleration/deceleration of cars or the door
closing speed, associated with human comfort [2]. Figure 1
depicts a typical vertical transportation system problem.
A considerable amount of uncertainty exists in vertical
transport systems because the quantity of passengers
behind a landing call and their exact destinations are
unknown until they press the car button inside of the cabin.
Apart from the complexity and data shortage, the system
40  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  August 2015
must also address possible future calls. Thus, pure mathe-
matical approaches have a limited contribution. Moreover,
the time lapse for reaching dispatching problem solutions
must be very small. Thus, a compromise exists between the
quality of the solution that a dispatching algorithm can
offer and the time required to compute it. The combinato-
rial nature of the problem, and its associated uncertainty,
make it ideal for artificial intelligence algorithms, but a
final simulation analysis prior to real-life implementation
is absolutely necessary [8].
A Classification of EGCS Tasks
and Functionalities
The tasks that an EGCS performs can be divided into two
different categories: primary tasks (those that improve the
quality or quantity of service) and secondary tasks (those
that help improve the performance of the EGCS while exe-
cuting a primary task; see Figure 2). The challenges facing
an EGCS are multifaceted. The main aim of all EGCSs is to
solve the combinatorial problem associated with dispatch-
ing landing calls efficiently, which means that the quality of
service provided by the vertical transport system must be
Ascending Landing Call
Car Call
LC1
Descending Landing Call
LC2
LC3
0 1
Elevators
Figure 1  A snapshot example for the dispatching problem. A landing
call (LC) is made by a passenger outside the elevator shaft, who
presses a button to go up or down. The LCs are numbered sequentially
in time. Once inside the elevator, the passenger makes the car call by
pressing a button indicating to which floor they’d like to go. In this exam-
ple, the right-hand elevator is on the fourth floor and traveling down. It
will stop at the third floor and pick up descending LC2 before proceed-
ing down to the second floor to deliver at least two passengers (and
perhaps additionally the passenger(s) currently waiting on floor three).
The left-hand elevator is currently on floor five and moving up to deliver
two passengers to floor eight. There are two ascending LCs (LC1 and
LC3) that are waiting to be serviced, and the dispatcher currently
doesn’t have an available elevator to dispatch to them.
optimized (there are n k assignment possibilities in a build- algorithms can be used to perform the allocation, or the
ing with n elevators and k active landing calls). According same algorithm could employ different performance param-
to some articles (see [9] for a detailed analysis), transport eters or objective functions.
allocation can be improved by diminishing the large The optimization layer maximizes the service by opti-
amount of uncertainty that is present in the system by mizing several relevant criteria. These criteria can vary de-
ensuring optimal data capture and detecting traffic pat- pending on whether the optimization is made according to
terns. Other types of problems arise when dealing with the the service point of view or the tenant point of view. From
dispatching of double-decker elevators due to the specific- a purely service perspective, the AWT, which is the average
ity of construction (two joined cars with one of them over time a passenger waits until the car arrives, is usually opti-
the other). This topic is detailed next in the section “Archi- mized. The long waiting-time percentage of calls (LWT%)
tectural Design Variations for Cars and Shafts.” Another is another measure of pure service quality and acts as a
class of problems relates to the quantity of service instead of measure of the service dispersion. The LWT% usually rep-
the quality of service. These problems have been approached resents the percentage of calls that have a waiting time of
through the use of artificial intelligence to optimize zone more than 60 s. Other criteria related to the quality of ser-
boundaries in configurations that implement the dynamic vice include the average journey time (AJT, the total amount
sectorization of floors during up-peak traffic periods. This of time that a passenger spends inside of the cabin) and the
is discussed more in the section “Approaches for Solving average total trip time (ATT, the total amount of time be-
the Car-Landing-Call Allocation” but in general terms tween initially pressing the button and the arrival of the
relates to the definition of a sector containing several adja- car at its destination). Because psychology research shows
cent floors that are (usually) attended by a dedicated eleva- that passengers do not give much importance to the time
tor. The boundaries of each zone are dynamic and can spent inside of the cabin but become annoyed if the eleva-
change with the demand. tor takes too long to arrive [2], the AWT is the most fre-
Whereas Figure 2 represents the tasks that a global EGCS quently used objective function from a service point of
performs and the relationships between these tasks (note view. In contrast, the tenant preferences include optimiz-
that not all EGCSs perform every function), Figure 3 depicts ing power consumption and the ATT (therefore workers
the different modular blocks that can be used in an EGCS lose less time) or maximizing the handling capacity (the
and their abilities to meet the functionalities defined in maximum transport capacity of the system).
Figure 2. The data-capture layer at the bottom is essential The optimization criteria also typically depend on the traf-
because the EGCSs must be checked frequently to determine fic patterns. Usually, the waiting times are preferentially opti-
the state of the vertical transport system. This data-capture mized relative to the other criteria, such as wasting energy
layer can be divided into two different sublayers, namely, the during heavy demand patterns (up peaks or down peaks) [10].
software sublayer and the hardware sublayer. The hardware Since the systems are designed to meet up-peak demand, most
sublayer comprises every physical device that belongs to the vertical transport systems are oversized for soft demands,
system. The software sublayer
executes algorithms (from alge-
braic to artificially intelligent)
to transform the sensor infor- Quality of Service Quantity of Service
mation into manageable data.
In this sense, the most complex Landing Call Optimization
task is to infer the traffic pat- Allocation of Dynamic
tern. Traffic patterns can be Primary Single-Decker Sectorization
divided into four different Task Systems
Boundaries
principal types depending on Double-Decker Optimization
the demand. These data are Systems
interpreted by the optimiza-
tion layer in several ways. The
most relevant data depend on Calibration Uncertainty
whether the traffic pattern is up
Secondary
peak (significantly ascending Task Data Capture
Autocalibration
flow from the main floor) or
Traffic-Pattern
whether the optimization re-
Detection
volves around maximizing the
quantity or quality of services.
However, depending on the
type of traffic pattern, different Figure 2  The taxonomy of the different tasks performed by an elevator group control system.

August 2015  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  41

 which include interfloor traffic. Con-
sequently, time optimization is often
switched to energy optimization
during off-peak periods because the

Program-
waiting time requirements are easily

Linear

ming
Methodology achieved as a collateral effect, even
when they are not properly opti-

Decision
mized. Although power consump-

Tree
tion is considered to be crucial in a
sustainable development, few ap-

Pattern Detection

Camera Scale
proaches currently include power re-
Intelligence
Artificial

Radar
duction [11]. Technology has evolved,
and new hoist elevator models allow
a portion of the energy that the eleva-
tor employed while moving up to be
regained. However, only a few stud-

Number of Passengers
Data Capture

ies [11]–[13] have incorporated this

Calculation of

Deck Position
regain of energy in their research.

on a Deck
Preferential

Hardware

Sensor
Software
Others have attempted to reduce
Service

energy consumption by modifying

the speed of the elevators [14].
Quality of Service Criteria

Because the dispatching problem

AWT LWT% AJT Energy

is NP-hard, the main approaches for

solving it are related to decision
Estimation on Number
of Passengers Behind

trees, linear programming, and arti-

a Landing Call

ficial intelligence. The scale of the

Button Panel
Optimization

problem and the need for a near-in-

Calibration

stantaneous solution make the dis-

patching problem difficult to solve
in a real application. One approach is
to have the EGCS periodically cali-
Figure 3  The relation between the subsystems of an elevator group control systems.

brate the dispatching algorithm to

Quantity of Service Criteria

optimize its performance. This opti-

RTT

mization can be achieved in real

Only Front/Front
and Rear Doors

time, in parallel, or through succes-

sive simulations conducted during
the night by employing data from a
Configuration
Setup

database. The next sections present

HC

the functionalities of each EGCS, as

described in Figure 2.
Double/Single
Decker

Approaches for Improving

Data Capture
Data capture and management are
directly related to, and support, traf-
Mechanical Orders

Control

fic-pattern recognition and landing-

Door

call allocation. Observers collected
data from the beginning of the last
century until the 1980s in manual sur-
veys [15]. By the end of the 1980s, the
Movement
Elevator

first generation of EGCSs controlled

by microprocessors was created,
which allowed for measurements and
the calculation of statistics relating to
traffic. In addition, technology was

42  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  August 2015

developed that allowed for real-time estimates of the number of
passengers inside the cabin. The number of passenger trans-
ferred in a stop can be calculated from the initial load, the min-
imum load, and the final load by standard that the weight for
all the people and traffic is characterized by daily and weekly
tables accessible to the dispatcher [16]. The installation of detec-
tors in the main floors of the building is suggested in [17]. Thus,
the number of people queuing for the elevator is known. In [18],
research was conducted to determine if the use of cameras with
special sensitivity could recognize the number of passengers
inside the cabin. However, in [19], a method was suggested for
estimating the number of people on every floor by employing
scales on every elevator placed under their floors.
Modern technology allows for every type of data to be
obtained and employs radar, digital weights, modern cam-
eras, or infrared beams [20]. A video-aided EGCS has been
suggested that is capable of detecting passengers, estimat-
ing their movements, and controlling the elevator doors
according to their paths [21]. In addition, the development of
a monitoring system that tracks the passenger demand
independently of the main EGCS has been undertaken [22].
This system spots data at crucial points, such as inside of the
elevator or at the waiting areas, and transmits all the gath-
ered data to a monitoring system. Furthermore, it has been
suggested [23] that sensors should be used rather than cam-
eras to detect and digitally create three-dimensional objects.
Approaches to Traffic Pattern Recognition
Classical theory describes four traffic patterns during a
typical day in buildings where people work. These patterns
depend on whether the main flow significantly ascends
from the main floor (up peak), descends toward the main
floor (down peak), both (lunch peak), or none (interfloor).
Figure 4 provides a representation of the typical move-
ments in office buildings (vertical axes represent the popu-
lation movement and the horizontal axis represents the
hourly period).
In a typical office or work building, the up peak corre-
sponds to the beginning of the working day, the down
peak corresponds to the end of the working day, the lunch
peak corresponds to the break in the middle of the work-
ing day, and the interfloor pattern characterizes the soft
and uniform demand during the remainder of the day.
Continuous variations in the passenger flow and cabin
load influence the path that the elevators choose [24]. Sev-
eral reasons justify performing a deep analysis of the traf-
fic in the building before programming a dispatching
algorithm. First, most of the controller algorithms are pre-
configured and use performance rules that are applied
depending on the type of traffic in the building at that
time. The EGCS must therefore include some form of traf-
fic-type detector. Second, the correct determination of the
period of the traffic pattern being experienced by the
building is a key factor because most of the calculations to
estimate the passengers’ AWT, the round-trip time, and
POP Up Traffic
Up Peak
15
10 Morning Lunch (In)
5 Interfloor
0
Time
0
5 Afternoon
Interfloor
10 Lunch (Out)
15
Down Traffic Down Peak
20
Figure 4  Traffic patterns occurring throughout the day in a typi-
cal office building. The figure shows population movement (POP)
versus time.
other performance measurements depend on the identifi-
cation of the corresponding peak period (see [2] and [15,
Ch. 3, 4]). For example, if up-peak traffic situations are not
identified quickly, long queues can build up on the main
entrance floor of the building (typically the ground floor),
and passenger waiting times will become longer. Long
waiting times cause dissatisfaction with the operation of
the elevators. However, the up-peak mode should not be
activated unnecessarily because a rule consisting of the
direct return of lifts to the entrance floors would then be
activated, resulting in long waiting times for passengers
who are at other floors.
Traffic-pattern detection is one of the most relevant but
least-studied features of vertical transportation [25]. The
evolution of the field of vertical transportation has improved
from its primitive form, which consisted exclusively of up-
peak traffic-pattern detection (based on the percentage of
cabin-load measured over specific time intervals), to the use
of modern complex heuristic algorithms that can identify
several traffic patterns [26]. In [27], a historical database was
employed to diminish uncertainty. Depending on the fre-
quency and tendency of the events, they were recorded as
weekly, daily, or real-time events. The degree of certainty of
the data was evaluated using two threshold considerations.
The model was slightly improved in [28] but is still similar to
the original [27]. However, in [19], a floor population method
was added to the EGCS. This method consisted of counting
the passengers entering and exiting the elevators on every
floor during the up-peak period. In this case, the total popu-
lations were inferred for each floor.
A system for determining the beginning and end of the
up-peak and down-peak periods has been suggested [29].
In this system, the number of boardings are counted and
compared with a threshold to detect the pattern. If the
number of boardings is greater than the threshold, a pat-
tern is identified. The threshold value may be a percentage
of the building’s population. In addition, the system pro-
vides a mechanism for adjusting this threshold value based
August 2015  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  43
 An EGCS consists of hall call buttons that are situated on every floor,
car call buttons inside of each cabin, and a group controller.
on the current traffic. Once an up-peak or down-peak
period is detected, the system checks the load of the decks
for a predefined time interval. If the loads are greater than
a determined load value, then the up-peak or down-peak
condition was detected. Some basic approaches are used to
address this problem by using models based on basic learn-
ing [30], which uses a historical and recent database to
determine if the traffic pattern that occurs is up peak, down
peak, or neither.
According to statistical learning theory, demand can be
predicted by using a support-vector machine with a qua-
dratic loss function, which is called a least-squares support-
vector machine [31]. In [32], a system was patented to detect
up-peak patterns by using statistical data obtained from
the actual incoming demand.
Fuzzy logic is especially suitable for detecting traffic
patterns [33] due to its own definition and the nature of the
detection problem. Fuzzy-logic rules have been suggested
to classify traffic patterns, but relevant input data, such as
the time of day or the passenger rate of arrival or depar-
ture, are not considered [34]. Another model that is able to
detect traffic and allocate landing calls using a set of fuzzy
rules has also been suggested. However, this suggested
model lacks any control strategy based on typical criteria,
such as the AWT, percentage of long waiting calls, or power
consumption [35]. The proposed control system can be
divided into three different modules, one for allocating
calls, one for generating the control strategy, and one for
traffic management, which gathers and memorizes the pas-
senger flow with time [36]. This module can recognize dif-
ferent patterns by measuring a set of five features from
three different perspectives that constitute the system
inputs. Based on the traffic, the features of up traffic and
down traffic can be distinguished. From the traffic percent-
ages, the system can examine the centralized in-traffic per-
centages and the distributed out-traffic percentages.
Finally, the time can be measured throughout the day.
From these five features, the system is capable of deducing
eight different traffic patterns.
Another possibility for detecting traffic patterns is to
combine the fuzzy inference with statistics that were calcu-
lated from a data-gathering system [37]. In this case, the
system can adapt smoothly to different situations. In [9],
the detection of the traffic pattern using a fuzzy-logic
model solves the lack of memory in fuzzy-logic designs by
considering as the input values the total ascending and
descending weights that are carried by the cabins during a
time interval, the variation in the ascending and descend-
44  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  August 2015
ing weight between periods, and the traffic pattern detected
in the previous interval. Finally, the anticipation of demand
by incorporating historical data tables into the dispatching
algorithm has been attempted [38].
Approaches to Parameter Calibration
One of the main difficulties when designing an EGCS is the
need to a priori set the values of a wide variety of parame-
ters that affect system performance [39]. These parameters
range from the specific settings of an optimization algo-
rithm, to weights in heuristic dispatcher or PI controllers,
or even to the parameters defining the linguistic regions of
fuzzy approaches. A discussion of the approaches to over-
come this difficulty is given next.
This problem requires expert knowledge, but if the
system is not able to adapt correctly to the traffic pattern
changes, then the system will not maximize its perfor-
mance. A control system in which the parameter values are
calibrated during the night while accounting for the data
gathered during the day has been suggested [40]. This
system conducts a calibration by using a genetic algorithm
that aims to provide robustness to the system in which the
performance does not change between the optimization
conditions and the actual work conditions. This change
between optimization conditions and actual work condi-
tions may result from changes in the objective function
(tenant preferences) or from different boundary conditions.
These changes are addressed by using a solution bank
memory or excluding some quality solutions that are found
for different traffic patterns to obtain fast convergence,
respectively. However, the latest trend in calibration sys-
tems consists of solving the problem without inferring any
data from statistical memory [41]–[45].
An EGCS that considers two different criteria simulta-
neously along with AWT and power consumption and
optimizes them simultaneously by employing an evolu-
tionary standardized-objective weighted aggregation
method is suggested in [41]. Because it is mathematically
impossible to minimize the criteria simultaneously, the
system balances the importance of each one by using a set
of weights that depend on certain features. This balance is
achieved by using a PI controller that calibrates the set of
weights after each iteration and depends on the deviation
of the anticipated AWT deviation. When the demand is
heavy, the system attempts to minimize the AWT. How-
ever, when the demand is low, the system attempts to mini-
mize power consumption. A similar EGCS has been
suggested [43], but the latter’s short evaluation function is
modeled to represent how the level of uncertainty increases
further into the future.
In addition, an automatic calibration system that consid-
ers the current feedback rather than the historical or statis-
tical data has been suggested [44]. The landing allocation is
conducted by employing a fuzzy engine. Every 5 min, the
calibration module compares the observed AWT with the
predicted AWT and acts over the fuzzy inference module
by changing the set of logic rules and the membership
function that defines the fuzzy variables (whether it is con-
sidered necessary or not). Another automatic EGCS calibra-
tion [42] suggests that the landing allocation is based on a
fuzzy neural network that is calibrated through a combina-
tion of an ant-colony algorithm and a back-propagation
algorithm. First, the ant algorithm provides a fast global
solution that considers the weights of the fuzzy neural-net-
work structure as inputs and uses a back-propagation algo-
rithm to perform an exhaustive local search to obtain a
global solution in the solutions space.
Approaches for Solving
the Car-Landing-call Allocation
As previously mentioned, the allocation problem is NP-
hard. In a building with n elevators and where k landing
calls occur, n k possible allocation solutions exist, and the
computational time that is required for solving the problem
increases rapidly with the problem size. Consequently,
most of the suggested solutions rely on artificial-intelli-
gence heuristics. The following sections present approaches
for tackling the problem.
Approaches Based on Heuristics
A multiobjective function that considers a few criteria,
namely, waiting time, the equal time-interval operation
preferential zone, riding time, the cabin-load factor, the
first-arriving-cage preferential zone, and the stop call was
investigated in [46]. These criteria are combined by using
different weights to calculate the final fitness of each eleva-
tor, and the elevator with the best fitness is selected to ser-
vice the landing call.
An EGCS that employs sectoring under down-peak traf-
fic conditions has been suggested [19]. This EGCS defines
one sector per elevator, and all sectors are formed by using
the same number of floors. The EGCS prioritizes down-
ward landing calls in the event of a conflict with upward
landing calls. An EGCS that combines decision rules with a
cost function that estimates the suitability of the set of rules
has been suggested [47]. Each assignment option contains a
landing-call item and an elevator item that is used to calcu-
late the cost function and evaluate the allocation. Some of
the items are changed, and new cost functions are calcu-
lated iteratively. The best possible assignments are selected
according to the cost function values. One study [48] defines
a figure of merit called the adjusted waiting time for every
elevator, which is a weighted combination of two different
estimated waiting times, namely, the waiting time esti-
mated from the future status of the elevator and the wait-
ing time estimated from the elevator’s landing pattern. The
allocation is made based on this adjusted waiting time.
Another study [49] reduces the magnitude of the problem
by defining a time window and only optimizing the prob-
lem inside that time window based on figures of merit,
such as the passenger arrival time, the arrival floor, and the
departure floor. In this case, the problem is to minimize the
total service time for all passengers.
An additional study [7] demonstrated that high-quality
solutions can be obtained by employing decision trees. The
decision tree is a decision-support tool that uses a tree-like
graph or model of decisions and their possible conse-
quences, including chance event outcomes and expected
waiting times. The accumulation of these alternatives
results in the decision tree. The heuristic aims to limit the
search in an intelligent way and controls the computation
time. The main problem in this type of search is related to
the limited or cycle search times. The search times must be
sufficiently large to allow for a certain depth in the search
and must be sufficiently small to provide a definitive solu-
tion for the control system within a reasonable period. The
computational problem lies in the fact that the number of
nodes and edges increases exponentially as a function of
the number of pending landing calls, making a complete
search impossible within the time required for a real-life
implementation. This problem results in two different algo-
rithm compromises. In this case, an allocation algorithm is
suggested based on a search tree, where a node is gener-
ated for every possible combination of a landing call and an
elevator in each level of the tree. Thus, the landing call is
assigned to the elevator that results in the lowest estimated
cost. These estimated costs can be obtained by looking at
cost tables, especially those made for the building.
Approaches Based on Fuzzy Logic
Fuzzy logic is one of the most common methods for
addressing elevator allocation. The main advantage of
fuzzy logic is its fast system response, which is crucial for
vertical transport. The main disadvantage of most fuzzy-
logic implementations in the literature is that such
approaches follow a nondynamic dispatch (although a
recent contribution considering a dynamic approach has
just been presented in [50]). Thus, the assignments cannot
be undone once they are allocated and remain fixed until
they are completed. Consequently, every landing call is
only evaluated once before an elevator is assigned to it. In
addition, although another landing call may appear in the
vertical transport system that may make that assignment
suboptimal, it cannot be undone. The suitability of each
cabin is evaluated in [51] by using different sets of fuzzy-
logic rules. Both the waiting time and riding time are con-
sidered as optimization criteria [52], and a hybrid model is
suggested that combines fuzzy rules with neural networks
August 2015  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  45
[53]. Furthermore, fuzzy logic is combined with a “reason-
ing unit” that selects the appropriate set of fuzzy rules for
each elevator depending on the miss forecast rate and the
estimation rate of the elevators [54]. Two studies, [34] and
[55], optimize the assignations according to three different
criteria, namely, the AWT, the long waiting times percent-
ages, and power consumption. The objective function
defined for each cabin combines every criterion by using a
set of weights. In this case, the assignment is made from
two different system modules. The allocation module
assigns the landing call using a set of fuzzy rules based on
the tenants’ preferences for every traffic pattern (each traf-
fic pattern has its own membership function). In addition,
the strategy assignment module is able to shift two stan-
dard membership functions (large and small) for each
input variable according to the relevance degrees defined
by the tenant for each variable and each traffic pattern. The
landing call can be assigned to the elevator that has the best
fuzzy-logic fit, but the choice can be delayed until the
degree of uncertainty of the allocation (also measured
through a set of fuzzy rules) is below a specified level [56].
The performance criteria that measure the “utility” of
assigning an elevator to a landing call through a set of
fuzzy rules can be defined [57]. In one study [58], a fuzzy-
logic EGCS is designed that iteratively applies groups to the
elevator in a predefined sequential order according to
fuzzy-logic rules, while the difference between the best
solution and the second best is not especially relevant (that
is, the first and second best solutions are quite close).
Numerical panels can be placed on every floor to minimize
the uncertainty [59]. In addition, the landing call is assigned
to the most suitable elevator according to the fuzzy mea-
surements of different criteria, including the car calls of the
elevator, the intended destination of the passenger, and the
source landing requested by the passenger. Fuzzy-logic-
based EGCSs have been employed that aim to keep the
waiting time at a reasonable level while giving service pref-
erences to certain floors [59]. These EGCSs use AWT, power
consumption, and floor traffic as criteria.
Approaches Based on Genetic Algorithms
Genetic algorithms have also been widely used to solve
allocation problems. According to several researchers [61]–
[64], considerably higher computational times are required,
and it is possible that the searching process becomes
blocked in a specific zone of the solution space due to a
local optimum. Most EGCSs do not offer a particular ser-
vice for each floor. However, a genetic algorithm is pre-
sented in this way [65] for allocating the landing calls while
setting preferences for each floor. The EGCS uses an objec-
tive function composed of two terms. The first one evalu-
ates the suitability of a cabin for attending a specific landing
call, expressing the preference for such floor, while the
second one is used as a flag that determines if the cabin is
attending a preferential landing call in at a certain time.
46  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  August 2015
The two different nonmutually exclusive preferences
include the load preference and the service preference. The
main advantage of the suggested EGCS is its ability to
improve the quality of service that is offered to certain
floors without excessively reducing the service offered to
the remaining floors. However, the main disadvantage of
this system is its inability to handle a large number of vari-
ables, which can overload in the system in terms of compu-
tation. Consequently, the use of a memory bank of the best
solutions has been suggested [66] to improve the efficiency
of the system by reducing the computational time and
securing a high-quality solution. The patent [67] claims an
algorithm capable of decreasing the expected AWT by eval-
uating only the two cars with the highest value of a second-
ary in-house criterion, allowing a preselection of cars for
faster convergence.
Zoning is a specific approach to deal with special traffic
situations. It consists of separating the building in zones,
associating groups of elevators to the different zones, and
moving and stopping the cars of the associated group
inside areas that are formed by adjacent floors. Although
this approach is explained in detail later, it is appropriate to
mention the use of genetic algorithms to solve the zoning
problem [30], [40], [68], [69]. The approach is typically the
same: the floors of an area are divided into two groups, one
for passenger-specific destination calls and the other for
floor-specific up/down calls. The genome of individual
elevators is specifically encoded to reflect this division. In
another line of research, a genetic algorithm that is focused
on optimizing the average riding time rather than the AWT
has been suggested in [70] and provides good performance
for the analyzed buildings.
Finally, researchers from the KONE Corporation [71]
combined a genetic algorithm with a statistical traffic esti-
mator. The different possible routes are generated and eval-
uated in a typical manner by using a genetic algorithm.
However, depending on the traffic conditions, the travel-
ling time is optimized if the demand is heavy or the pas-
senger waiting time is optimized if the demand is low.
Approaches Based on Neural Networks
and Hybrid Neural Networks
Several authors [72]–[74] have suggested the allocation of
landing calls using common neural-network approaches.
However, the approach addressed in [75] is of particular
interest because it estimates the remaining response time for
an elevator car to be assigned to a new landing call. Further-
more, this neural network is standardized for every use in
any building by using an upstream fixed-length stop
description that codifies the building status every time a
new landing call is detected. This work is extended in [76],
where a general method is suggested for any neural network
based on an EGCS that trains the neural network while the
elevators are performing the service. Therefore, the remain-
ing response time can be estimated for the elevator to
accomplish a landing call. The main advantage of neural
networks is their ability to adapt to changes in traffic flow, (6)
but the main disadvantage is the complex design, which
implies a higher implementation cost. Moreover, their ability Forwarding State
to adapt to sudden and abrupt changes in traffic flow is (1) (2)
(5) (7)
somewhat limited. To overcome this disadvantage, an EGCS (3)
based on a fuzzy neural network was suggested by [77] and
[78], which used fuzzy-logic designs to adapt to sudden traf- Waiting State Transport State
fic flow changes and the neural networks to adapt to long-
term traffic flows. In addition, a fuzzy neural network is
(4)
suggested that uses a fuzzy evaluation of the situation when
a new landing call appears and temporally assigns the land-
Figure 5  A diagram showing the possible states of an elevator and
ing call to an elevator [79]. Next, the neural network receives the various possible transitions.
the values given by the fuzzy process as input values and
checks the suitability of the election. Genetic network pro- Through communication between cabins, the elevators
gramming is a type of evolutionary algorithm that is similar that are in a waiting state may avoid competition with other
to the genetic algorithm, in which each individual represents elevators attending to the landing call, and the elevator in a
a graph that contains entwined nodes. Then such nodes pro- waiting state always has higher priority for attending land-
cess all the information regarding the edges between the ing calls than elevators in a transport state unless a trans-
individuals. Unlike the conventional genetic algorithm, the port-state elevator has a car call for the same floor as the
global searches in genetic network programming are not landing call. In addition, the elevator that is considered as
locked to a local optimum. However, a global search has the attending to the landing has priority over all other elevators
disadvantage of slow convergence and high computational in the forwarding and waiting states, if their distances to
cost. To overcome this drawback, a solution to the conver- the landing call are greater than that of the elevator that has
gence and computational problem that is associated with the the priority landing call. The objective of the learning pro-
genetic neural network is suggested by combining them cess is to obtain a compromise between the total AWT that
with an ant-colony algorithm, which provides the genetic is estimated at the beginning of the process to the current
network programming with the necessary feedback to find moment and the total average number of passengers served
the global optimal quickly [80]. in each elevator trip. Each time an elevator accomplishes a
service, the weight of the rule that was employed in the as-
Approaches Based on Multiagent Systems signation is actualized according to a formula. A multia-
Multiagent systems appear in contrast to centralized con- gent-based EGCS has been suggested where every elevator
trol systems and constitute a decentralized form of control has its own control system and competition is avoided
based on agents that communicate or act independently. A through communication [82]. Each local elevator control
multiagent control system is suggested where the elevators system is built using field programmable gate-array logic
are the independent agents that communicate with each panels that can implement four different architectures de-
other to avoid competition to attend the landing calls [81]. pending on the traffic flow. The main EGCS is only used to
The main advantage of a decentralized elevator control decide which one of the four possible configurations must
system is its robustness in the face of
breakdowns and its ability to adapt to
Table 2 Examples of in situ rules that were built for the button panels [81].
traffic fluctuations. The landing call allo-
cation consists of two different processes,
a learning process and a set of rules de- Time Elapsed After Number of Passengers
Rule Number Hall Call Button Pressed During Last 5 Min
fined in situ.
1 UP_X1 = ON 0 # UP_T1 1 10 UP_5R1 1 50
As shown in Figure 5, each cabin has
three different states, namely, the waiting 2 UP_X1 = ON 0 # UP_T1 1 10 UP_5R1 $ 50
(empty or full but without moving), for- … … … …
warding (empty and moving to a landing 7 UP_X1 = OFF UP_T1 = 0 UP_5R1 $ 50
call), and transporting (with passengers 8 UP_X 2 = ON 0 # UP_T2 1 10 UP_5R1 1 50
inside and moving to a destination) states. … … … …
Transitions 2, 4, and 7 are managed ac-
7 ^N - 1h UP_XN-1 = OFF UP_TN-1 = 0 UP_5RN-1 $ 50
cording to the in situ rules for every but-
ton situated on every floor; see Table 2. 7 ^N - 1 h + 1 DOWN_X 2 = ON 0 # DOWN_T2 1 10 DOWN_5R2 1 50
The active landing calls are ordered ac- … … … …
cording to their weights.

August 2015  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  47

be executed according to fuzzy logic. This method signifi-
cantly reduces the amount of traffic data. Additionally, an-
other multiagent-based EGCS has been suggested that uses
a distributed system and overcomes computing bottlenecks
by defining agents that represents the single elevator (coor-
dinated agents), the proper EGCS (high-level coordinator
agent), and the virtual management unit (management
agent) [83].
Other Computational Approaches
Several other computational approaches have been tested
for controlling EGCSs. For example, a control system was
developed exclusively for the up-peak period based on a
dynamic programming model that determined when the
cabins on the main floor must depart [84]. This model
Technical
Services
Skylobby
110 Stories = 1368 ft (North), 1362 ft (South)
resolves the problem in two steps. First, it formulates the
problem as a continuous Markov decision problem. Next, it
ascertains the discrete Markov equivalent problem that is
solved by dynamic programming.
Particle swarm algorithms may produce better results than
genetic algorithms or tabu search engines [85]. In particle
swarm algorithms, each solution is encoded as a particle that
is placed in the space of possible solutions and has its own
associated speed that defines its movement through the solu-
tion space. The algorithm itself consists of a loop that modifies
the speed and trajectory of these particles during several itera-
tions to adjust them according to the distance between the
best positions reached by the particles and the best positions
reached by the entire swarm. Thus, the speed changes accord-
ing to the quality of the solutions area that the particle and the
swarm are visiting at a particular moment.
Petri nets have also been suggested to deal with the
problem (see [86] for a vertical transportation system mod-
eled as a petri net). A petri net associated with a vertical
transport system implies a delimited system that can be
solved using a Karp–Miller tree [87]. However, such
approaches have not gained too much enthusiasm due to
the existence of convergence problems in the required
time for real-life implementation. Tabu search has not been
extensively used in EGCS optimization, and the first EGCS
based on a tabu search is provided in [88]. In [89], it is
shown that the elevator-dispatching problem can be solved
by employing a viral algorithm and can outperform the
marks of other approaches, such as genetic algorithms or
tabu searches.

Technical
Services
Architectural Design Variations
for Cars and Shafts
This section reviews several design alternatives that are
used to increase the handling capacity and improve the
efficiency in the dispatching process. For this purpose,
these designs place more than one car in the same shaft,
Local either attached to each other or free to travel separately.
Elevators
This section first presents double-decker systems and then
Skylobby analyzes other multicar designs.
Technical
Services Double-Decker Systems
A double-decker system consists of two cabins that are
joined and travel together along the same shaft. In fact, a
Express Express double-decker is an elevator with two cars attached
Elevators Elevators
together, one on top of the other. This system allows pas-
sengers on two consecutive floors to use the elevator
simultaneously, significantly increasing the passenger
capacity of the elevator shaft. The main advantage of a
double-decker system is the elevator footprint reduction
Six Stories

Technical in the core of the building (between 25 and 40% [90]).

Services Local
Elevators From a service perspective, the underuse of one deck at
Plaza Level the expense of the other must be avoided, which involves
the promotion of the elevators for attending adjacent land-
Figure 6  An example of sectorization in a building. ing calls so that the number of stops is minimized. In the

48  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  August 2015

early 1960s, the control system for double-decker elevators
was basic. Otis developed the trailing-deck control system
that consists of dividing the elevator into the leading deck
(first deck in the direction of movement) and trailing
deck. The dispatching method only used the collective
control principle for dispatching the trailing deck. (The
collective control principle is a well-known and basic ele-
vator control principle that states that every car collects
calls in its trip direction. That is, an ascending elevator,
for example, will collect passengers wanting to go up if
they are between the elevator’s current position and it
ultimate destination. The collective control principle is
addressed in most elevator handbooks, such as [2] or [15].)
Thus, the leading deck only attends to the landing calls
adjacent to those already assigned to the trailing deck,
which leads to large differences between the deck loads
and a significant reduction in the handling capacity of the
system (throughout the interfloor periods).
The authors of [91] and [92] suggest a double-decker
EGCS system using neural networks, and the authors of
[93] suggest an EGCS that is especially designed for double-
decker systems that can assign landing calls for both decks
and also possesses a proper assignment control device that
decides whether the landing calls that are already assigned
to both decks can be served simultaneously. Furthermore,
[94] considers the path of the elevators that are already
assigned to the landing calls (from the starting floor to the
final floor) [95] and suggests an EGCS that minimizes the
average ride time rather than the AWT. In [96] estimated
waiting time and estimate ride time are minimized. Two
other studies ([97] and [98]) implement a genetic algorithm
for dispatching double-decker systems. In this case, each
possible allocation was characterized as a typical gene
Table 3 Classification according to the objectives.
Data Traffic-Pattern
Reference Gathering Detection
[17]–[19]
[26], [37]
[35], [36], [74]
[34]
[13]
[40]–[42], [44]
[39]
[7], [50]–[52], [61]–[65], [69], [70],
[72], [73], [77], [78], [80]–[82],
[84], [86], [88]
[91], [92], [96], [100], [101]
[103]–[112]
[114]–[117], [119], [120]
inside a chromosome that represents a global assignation.
Although [99] states that the collective methods for a sin-
gle-deck elevator present approximately the same perfor-
mance as the noncollective methods, [100] considers that
collective dispatching is no more suitable for this type of
system because it involves long waiting times, especially
on the lower floors and for a significant number of eleva-
tors. In addition, this method results in bunching of the
elevators during the down-peak traffic periods. The dis-
patching algorithm evaluates the assignment of attending
to a landing call to the arrival time of the elevator and the
time that a passenger employs inside the system. The prob-
lem itself is set out as a theory of order problem, where the
route that the deck follows can be represented as a pick and
delivery problem graph, which is built at the same time
that the deck creates its itinerary. Different graphs are built
depending on the travel direction; hence, two different
graphs are required for every elevator and for each time
interval equal to the time required for a round trip. Each
deck is considered as an independent elevator when com-
peting for the landing calls. The computational time in the
genetic algorithms constitutes a disadvantage, but in this
algorithm, the time can be drastically reduced by up to 65%
when using a gene bank.
In a different study, a dispatching algorithm was sug-
gested for a double-decker system based on genetic net-
work programming and was optimized by an ant-colony
system that provided fast convergence [101]. Genetic net-
work programming with interconnected process and deci-
sion nodes, according to the search needs, provides
excellent adaptation to the demand fluctuation. The system
names the deck that was considered by the algorithm for
optimizing the landing-call assignment as “self-cage” and
Objective
Landing-Call Parameter Double-Decker Multicar Optimization
Allocation Calibration System System Dynamic Set
August 2015  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  49
 Table 4 Classification according to the criteria employed.

Criteria

Maximum WT
+ Number Average Load
Uniform Distance of Stops + Number of Preference
% of Round- + Number Number of Passengers + Service Handling
Reference AWT LWT Energy ATT AJT Trip Time of Stops RGP Loops per Trip Preference Capacity Interval
[35], [40], [44], [50],
[51], [61]–[64], [69],
[72]–[74], [77], [78],
[80], [82], [86], [91],
[92], [106], [107]
[36]
[34], [52], [108]
[13]
[41]
[42]
[70], [88], [96]
[81]
[7]
[65]
[84]
[100]
[101]
[103], [109], [110]
[104]
[105]
[111]
[112]
[114]
[116]
[115], [117], [119], [120]
AWT: average waiting time
%LWT: percentage of long waiting calls
ATT: average trip time
AJT: average journey time
Max WT: maximum waiting time
RGP: genetic network programming
Interval: average time for having an idle elevator ready to serve at the main floor.

names the adjacent deck that was not directly considered
by the algorithm for optimizing the landing-call assign-
ment as “other-cage.” The system handles 12 different items
or features that represent the state of the system.
The authors of [102] suggest another genetic network
programming approach. First, this algorithm optimizes the
genetic network programming for solving the double-
decker system problem. Next, its performance is compared
with the performance obtained by using the conventional
methods for ratification.
Multicar Elevator Systems
Multicar elevators (MCEs) consist of several cars that are
placed in a single elevator shaft. This architectural variation
has recently attracted significant attention among high-per-
formance transportation systems. However, the accumulat-
ed knowledge regarding single-car elevators is not readily
applicable to MCEs due to their specific operation and differ-
ent performance. An MCE system’s main problem is avoid-
ing conflict between the two cars. Therefore, an MCE group
control method that can efficiently allocate service calls

50  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  August 2015

 Table 5 Classification according to the methodology used.

Methodology
Particle
Historic Fuzzy Neural Genetic Ant Colony Tabu Multi- Search Petri Dynamic Immune Swarm Cellular
Reference Memory Logic Net Algorithm Optimization Search agent Tree Net Programming Algorithm Algorithm Automata
[26]
[37]
[74]
[13],
[34]–[36],
[40], [44],
[50]–[52]
[41],
[61]–[65],
[69], [70],
[80], [100],
[111], [112]
[42]
[77], [78]
[88]
[81], [82]
[7]
[72], [73],
[92], [109]
[86]
[84]
[101]
[115]
[116], [117]
[85], [119],
[120]

while preventing interference among the cars is required. In
[103], an MCE group control algorithm is proposed that im-
plements an interference risk evaluation, a schedule-comple-
tion-time minimization function, and idle-car parking
strategies. The algorithm achieves an efficient allocation of
calls and prevents interference without restricting the opera-
tion of elevator cars. The simulation results showed good
performance under low and medium passenger arrival
rates. The study in [104] also proposes a method to avoid col-
lisions between cars in an MCE system, but in this method,
collision avoidance is treated as a dynamic optimization
problem (to determine which floor each car should visit next
under the constraint that collisions never occur). In this ap-
proach, the group controller gives basic car travel schedules.
Other contributions, such as [105], follow a mathematical ap-
proach to study the technical conditions, relevant parame-
ters, and engineering implementation issues for handling
and overstepping the cars in the shaft. Some approaches
[106] are traffic sensitive and depend on the traffic pattern to
give preference to a set of different optimization criteria.
However, the main objective is usually to reduce the average
total waiting time, as is the case of [107], which proposed a
method that minimizes the waiting times based on an algo-
rithm that allocates requests to elevator cars by using a local
search method to reduce the wasted time of idle cars. Other
techniques, such as [108], consist of defining dynamic zones
in which the elevators can operate without conflict. More
complex approaches use other artificial intelligence tech-
niques such as reinforcement learning in [109], where a con-
trol agent selects the best of four strategies, namely:
1) transportation strategy, 2) passenger strategy, 3) zone strat-
egy, and 4) difference strategy, according to the traffic pat-
tern. Similar approaches, such as [110], use an average
reward learning method to reduce service completion time
and prevent interference. In [111], a continuously running
real-time genetic algorithm is used, and in [112] a genetic
programming network is selected to operate the cars at
equal time intervals to obtain a better performance. This ge-
netic network utilizes different setting parameters, the most
relevant being the maximum predicted waiting time, the

August 2015  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  51

 A double-decker system consists of two cabins that are
joined and travel together along the same shaft.
number of passengers to be transported, the number of al-
located hall calls to the candidate car, and the predicted
riding rate (number of passengers/car capacity) of the candi-
date car when it arrives at the assigned hall call.
Dynamic Sectorization Management
One of the most frequently employed and efficient meth-
ods for improving the handling capacity of a vertical trans-
port installation during severe up-peak traffic patterns is to
divide the building into zones. In this way, each zone can
only be attended to by the elevator that is already assigned
to it; see Figure 6. Roughly, the sectorization methods can
be classified as static or dynamic when the boundaries of
the zones are fixed or flexible, respectively. Dynamic sec-
torization performs better because it is capable of adapting
to changes in traffic flow using, for example, artificial intel-
ligence algorithms.
The efficiencies of the algorithms that define the
dynamic sectorization are related to the performances of
the traffic-detector systems. The problem can be solved
using dynamic programming ([113] and [114]), and the
authors of [115] designed an algorithm for the optimal defi-
nition of zones based on cellular automaton. In [116] and
[117], a control system is presented that (by means of an
artificial immune algorithm) improves the handling capac-
ity of the vertical transport installations, minimizes the
round-trip time of each installation, and maintains a uni-
form round-trip time (see [118] for background on artificial
immune algorithms). In [119] and [120], the optimization of
the zone definitions is suggested by using a particle swarm
algorithm. For a wide background on particle swarm opti-
mization algorithms and a guide to selecting algorithm
parameters for successful convergence, see [121].
Relevant Literature Classification
Tables 3–5 summarize and classify the most relevant litera-
ture discussed in this article. Moreover, the references are
classified according to their aims, methodology, and the
criteria used.
Conclusions and Further Research
This article contains a complete survey of the EGCS
research that has been undertaken in the past. These results
are represented and classified in Table 3. Furthermore, this
article summarizes the literature related to EGCS tasks and
notes the relationships among the different subjects in the
vertical transport field. Consequently, this study can serve
as a starting point for new research. Currently, most
research has aimed to optimize the landing-call allocation
52  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  August 2015
problem, which results in improved service quality. How-
ever, EGCSs can perform other secondary tasks to improve
dispatching, such as reducing the amount of uncertainty
by gathering proper data or by detecting traffic patterns,
and calibration for better algorithm performance. A trend
exists regarding the development of EGCSs that are able to
integrate and fulfill these entirely different tasks.
Although the main aim of the research has been focused
on improving the quality of service, another aim also exists
to improve the quantity of service that is offered by im-
proving the definition of the boundaries in dynamic sector-
ization during up-peak periods. Consequently, the elevators
can carry more passengers in less time. The traffic detec-
tion function is not only relevant to reduce the amount of
uncertainty but helps the system to autotune its own pa-
rameters according to the traffic demand. This function is
generally easily identified in research proposals because
vertical transport systems are designed to function under
the maximum up-peak capacity. This design results in an
oversized system for the remaining traffic patterns, which
can be advantageous for minimizing criteria other than the
typical waiting time, such as power consumption. Howev-
er, although the main objective in landing-call allocation is
to reduce the AWT to provide optimum services for the
passengers, several articles have included the tenants’ pref-
erences in the optimization process, such as giving service
to preferential floors or reducing power consumption.
Regarding power consumption, although there is a lot of
interest in sustainable development, it has not been consid-
ered in many articles regarding vertical transport systems.
The few references that have addressed the problem do so
using artificial intelligence heuristics. However, the com-
putational load of each algorithm and the cost of the pro-
duction relative to the benefits of their implementation are
typically not addressed. Furthermore, no studies exist that
relate these factors for modern controllers or old-fashioned
controllers from an economic viewpoint (those based on
simples logic rules). Another significant aspect in vertical
transport research is the lack of benchmarks and the non-
existence of comparisons among the EGCSs that are sug-
gested in the different articles. This fact, together with the
lack of data, such as the computational time or the environ-
mental conditions set for the simulations, complicate the
task of properly evaluating all of the presented approaches.
The dynamic sectorization problem is typically solved on
the timescale of several seconds, so there is usually enough
time to calculate and evaluate all of the possible solutions
before choosing the best one. In those cases, dynamic sector-
ization problems can be solved with algebraic methods
rather than artificial intelligence heuristics, the use of which
can unnecessarily complicate the design.
Several future areas of research may arise from the
EGCSs for vertical transportation systems. One area of re-
search may be related to the development of special archi-
tectural solutions for new EGCSs, as in the case of
double-decker elevators, which are quite common in sky-
scrapers, but there are few references in the literature. A
similar area of research arises with twin systems, which is
a novel elevator architecture. Twin systems are placed on
the same rails but the decks are not connected in such a
way that the current and future positions of the other decks
define the maximum movement of the deck. Recently,
MCEs (representing the general extension of twin topolo-
gies, including the possible installation of three or even
more cars in the same shaft) have become common in new
skyscrapers. Consequently, a scientific literature regarding
EGCS of MCEs is now being constructed. These two facts
are especially relevant considering that such skyscrapers
usually represent the most complex vertical transport
problem. Also, from this viewpoint, the main aim of future
research and development should focus on keeping pro-
posals and designs as simple and efficient as possible to
facilitate real-life implementation in the industry. Improve-
ments should be numerically measured in terms of the pro-
vided service and the computation time that is required to
reach the solutions. In this way, a novel proposal may be
properly evaluated according to its actual improvements
(whether in terms of the manufacturing costs or the ser-
vices provided) rather than according to the originality of
the model. Hence, it is economically beneficial to define a
standard vertical transport simulation environment that
exactly quantifies the validity of every model and its com-
petitiveness against other models.
AUTHORS
Joaquín R. Fernández is a postdoctoral researcher in in-
dustrial engineering at the University of Seville. His back-
ground includes a B.Sc. in telecommunication engineering,
an M.Sc. in industrial engineering, and a Ph.D. in artificial
intelligence applied to vertical transportation, all from the
University of Seville. His main field of research, with sev-
eral contributions in diverse international journals, is fo-
cused on vertical transportation and elevator group control
systems. He has worked on several projects with private
vertical transportation companies and has two patents re-
lated with this field.
Pablo Cortés (pca@us.es) is a professor in industrial en-
gineering at the University of Seville. He obtained a special
doctoral award for his Ph.D. in industrial engineering at the
University of Seville in 2000. His research interests focus
on the fields of soft computing, computational intelligence,
operations research applied to transport and logistics, and
vertical transportation. He is the author and referee of
academic articles in many journals, as well as an editorial
board member for a number of scientific journals. He has
been a project leader of many RTD projects funded by pub-
lic and private administrations and has been responsible
for numerous technology transfer projects. He is the inven-
tor of three international patents in vertical transportation.
He has been general manager of the Office for Research
and Technology Transfer of the University of Seville and
now is general manager of the Association for Industrial
Cooperation of Andalusia (AICIA). He is a Member of the
IEEE. He can be contacted at Dpto. Organización Industrial
y Gestión de Empresas II, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ing-
eniería, University of Seville, Camino de los Descubrimien-
tos s/n, E-41092 Sevilla, Spain.
References
[1] M. Gerometta, P. Kazmierczak, M. Lacey, P. Oldfield, and A. Wood, “Tall
buildings in numbers. World’s tallest 50 urban agglomerations,” CTBUH J.,
no. 2, pp. 48–49, 2009.
[2] G. Barney, Elevator Handbook Theory and Practice. London: Spon Press, 2003.
[3] P. Cortés, J. Guadix, and J. Muñuzuri, “A state of the art on the most rel-
evant patents in vertical transportation in buildings,” Rec. Pat. Comput. Sci.,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 96–110, 2009.
[4] M. Thornton, “Skyscrapers and business cycles,” Quart. J. Aust. Econ.
Spring, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 51–74, 2005.
[5] Y. Liu, Z. Hu, Q. Su, and J. Huo, “Energy saving of elevator group control
based on optimal zoning strategy with interfloor traffic,” in Proc. 3rd Int.
Conf. Information Management, Innovation Management Industrial Engineering,
2010, vol. 3, article 5694743, pp. 328–331.
[6] M. Z. Hasan, R. Fink, M. R. Suyambu, and M. K. Baskaran, “Assessment
and improvement of elevator controllers for energy efficiency,” in Dig. Tech.
Papers—IEEE Int. Conf. Consumer Electronics, 2012, article 6241747, pp. 1–8.
[7] M. Hamdi and D. Mulvaney, “Prioritised A* search in real-time elevator
dispatching,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 219–230, 2007.
[8] P. Cortés, J. Muñuzuri, and L. Onieva, “Design and analysis of a tool
for planning and simulating dynamic vertical transport,” Simul.: Trans. Soc.
Model. Simul. Int., vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 255–274, 2006.
[9] P. Cortés, J. R. Fernández, J. Guadix, and J. Muñuzuri, “Fuzzy logic based
controller for peak traffic detection in elevator systems,” J. Comput. Theor.
Nanosci., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 310–318, 2012.
[10] M. M. Rashid, N. A. Rashid, A. Farouq, and M. A. Rahman, “Design and
implementation of fuzzy based controller for modern elevator group,” in Proc.
IEEE Symp. Industrial Electronics Applications, 2011, article 6108794, pp. 63–68.
[11] Z. Hu, Y. Liu, Q. Su, and J. Huo, “A multi-objective genetic algorithm de-
signed for energy saving of the elevator system with complete information,”
in Proc. IEEE Int. Energy Conf. Exhibition, 2010, article 5771661, pp. 126–130.
[12] T. Tyni, J. Ylinen, M. Matela, and T. Rintala, “Genetic allocation method
for an elevator group,” U.S. Patent 7140472 B2, Nov. 28, 2006.
[13] J. R. Fernández, P. Cortés, J. Guadix, and J. Muñuzuri, “Dynamic fuzzy
logic elevator group control system for energy optimization,” Int. J. Inform.
Technol. Decis. Making, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 591–617, 2013.
[14] M. Z. Hasan, R. Fink, M. R. Suyambu, and M. K. Baskaran, “Assessment
and improvement of intelligent controllers for elevator energy efficiency,” in
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Electro Information Technology, 2012, article 6220727, pp. 1–7.
[15] CIBSE Guide D: Transportation Systems in Buildings. London: Chartered
Inst. Building Services Engineers, 2010.
[16] K. Thangavelu, “‘Artificial intelligence’ based crowd sensing system for
elevator car assignment,” U.S. Patent 5 022 497, June 11, 1991.
[17] H. Kulju and A. Vurri, “Procedure and means for counting objects
within a given area,” Kone elevator GB Patent 2 191 358, Dec. 1987.
[18] H. Haraguchi, “Load distribution detecting system for elevator,” Otis
elevator, U.S. Patent 4 951 786, 1990.
[19] N. Kameli and J. M. Collins, “Elevator downpeak sectoring,” U.S. Patent
5 480 006, Jan. 2, 1996.
[20] J. Kim and B. Moon, “Adaptive elevator group control with cameras,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 377–382, 2001.
[21] L. Lin, Z. Xiong, M. A. Finn, P. Y. Peng, M. Atalla, P. Kang, M. Misra,
and C. M. Netter, “Video aided system for elevator control,” GB Patent 2 447
829(A), Sept. 24, 2008.
August 2015  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  53
[22] N. Yamaguchi and T. Suzuki, “Functional variable remote monitoring
system and remote monitoring method for elevator,” JP Patent 2 008 081 299
(A), April 10, 2008.
[23] R. Deplazes and E. Cortona, “Three-dimensional monitoring in the
area of an elevator by means of a three-dimensional sensor,“ U.S. Patent 20
060 037 818, Feb. 23, 2006.
[24] T. Nagatani and K. Tobita, “Effect of periodic inflow on elevator traffic,”
Phys. A, vol. 391, no. 18, pp. 4397–4405, 2012.
[25] S. Makridakis, S. Wheelwright, and V. McGee, Forecasting Methods and
Applications. New York: Wiley, 1998.
[26] K. Thangavelu, “Artificial intelligence based learning system predict-
ing peak-period times for elevator dispatching,” U.S. Patent 5 241 142, 1993.
[27] N. Kameli, “Elevator traffic predictions using historical data checked
for certainty,” U.S. Patent 5 272 288, Dec. 21, 1993.
[28] N. Kameli, “Predictor elevator for traffic during peak conditions,” U.S.
Patent 5 276 295, Jan. 4, 1994.
[29] K. Thangavelu, “‘Artificial Intelligence’ based learning system predict-
ing ‘peak-period’ times for elevator dispatching,” U.S. Patent 5 035 302, July
30, 1991.
[30] Y. Xu and F. Luo, “Pattern recognition of traffic flows in elevator group
control systems based on SVM,” J. South China Univ. Technol., vol. 33, no. 6,
pp. 32–35, 2005.
[31] F. Luo, Y. G. Xu, and J. Z. Cao, “Elevator traffic flow prediction with
least squares supports vector machines,” in Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Machine
Learning Cybernetics, Aug. 18–21, 2005, pp. 4266–4270.
[32] T. Tyni and J. Ylinen, “Method and apparatus for allocating passengers
by a genetic algorithm,” U.S. Patent 20 056 913 117, July 5, 2005.
[33] S. A. Sattar, J. K. Mizon, and D. J. Sirag, Jr., “Using fuzzy logic to deter-
mine the number of passengers entering and exiting an elevator car,” CA
Patent 2 085 087, June 18, 1993.
[34] M. Siikonen and J. Leppala, “Elevator traffic pattern recognition,” in
Proc. 4th IFSA Congr., 1991, pp. 195–198.
[35] S. Hikita and K. Komaya, “A new elevator group-supervisory control
system using fuzzy rule-base,” J. Soc. Instrum. Control Eng., vol. 25, no. 1,
pp. 99–104, 1989.
[36] C. Kim and O. Jeong, “Group management control method for eleva-
tor system employing traffic flow estimation by fuzzy logic using variable
value preferences and decisional priorities,” U.S. Patent 5 679 932, 1997.
[37] M. Hayase, H. Takeuchi, and Y. Suzuki, “COMMAND 6000L elevator
group supervisory control system with self-learning function,” Toshiba
Rev., vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 776–778, 1984.
[38] P. E. Utgoff and M. E. Connell, “Real-time combinatorial optimization
for elevator group dispatching,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern. A, vol. 42,
no. 1, pp. 130–146, 2012.
[39] T. Tobita, A. Fujino, K. Segawa, K. Yoneda, and Y. Ichikawa, “A param-
eter tuning method for an elevator group control system using a genetic
algorithm,” in Proc. IEEE 22nd Int. Conf. Industrial Electronics, Control Instru-
mentation, 1996, vol. 2, pp. 823–828.
[40] S. Oh and D. Park, “Self-tuning fuzzy controller with variable universe
of discourse,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Systems Man Cybernetics, 1995, pp.
2628–2632.
[41] T. Tyni and J. Ylinen, “Evolutionary bi-objective optimisation in the
elevator car routing problem,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 169, no. 3, pp. 960–977,
2004.
[42] J. Liu and Y. Liu, “Ant colony algorithm and fuzzy neural network
based intelligent dispatching algorithm of an elevator group control sys-
tem,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Control Automation, 2007, pp. 2306–2310.
[43] J. Jamaludin, N. Rahim, and W. Hew, “Self-tuning fuzzy-based dis-
patching strategy for elevator group control systems,” in Proc. Int. Conf.
Control, Automation Systems, 2008, pp. 339–344.
[44] J. Jamaludin, N. Rahim, and W. Hew, “An elevator group control system
with a self-tuning fuzzy logic group controller,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 4188–4198, 2010.
[45] S. Wu and G. Wu, “A novel elevator group control scheduling algorithm
based on pseudo differential feedback,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Automation
Logistics, 2012, pp. 111–115.
[46] S. Kuzunuki, Y. Morita, K. Yoneda, T. Ueshima, and T. Tobita, “Group-
control method and apparatus for an elevator system with plural cages,”
U.S. Patent 4 947 965, Aug. 14, 1990.
[47] T. Tyni and J. Ylinen, “Method and apparatus for allocating landing
calls in an elevator group,” U.S. Patent 5 932 852, Aug. 3, 1999.
54  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  August 2015
[48] D. Nikovski and M. Brand, “Method and elevator scheduler for sched-
uling plurality of cars of elevator system in building,” WO Patent 04 113 216
(A2), Dec. 29, 2004.
[49] M. J. Atalla, A. C. Hsu, P. B. Luh, G. G. Luther, and B. Xiong, “Group
elevator scheduling with advanced traffic information,” WO Patent 2 006
113 598 (A2), Oct. 26, 2006.
[50] J. Fernández, P. Cortés, J. Munuzuri, and J. Guadix, “Dynamic fuzzy
logic elevator group control system with relative waiting time consider-
ation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 4912–4919, 2014.
[51] C. Kim, K. Seong, and H. Lee-kwang, “Design and implementation of
a fuzzy elevator group control system,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern., vol.
28, no. 3, pp. 277–287, 1998.
[52] T. Ishikawa, A. Miyauchi, and M. Kaneko, “Supervisory control for el-
evator group by using fuzzy expert system which also addresses traveling
time,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Industrial Technology, 2000, vol. 2, pp. 87–94.
[53] N. Imasaki, S. Kubo, S. Nakai, T. Yoshitsugu, K. Jun-Ichi, and T. Endo,
“Elevator group control system tuned by a fuzzy neural network applied
method,” in Proc. 4th IEEE Int. Conf. Fuzzy Systems and 2nd Int. Fuzzy Engi-
neering Symp., 1995, vol. 4, pp. 1735–1740.
[54] M. Amano, “Elevator control apparatus using evaluation factors and
fuzzy logic,” U.S. Patent 5 233 138, Aug. 3, 1993.
[55] J. O. Kim, “Group management control method for elevator system em-
ploying traffic flow estimation by fuzzy logic using variable value prefer-
ences and decisional priorities,” U.S. Patent 5 679 932, Oct. 21, 1997.
[56] D. J. Sirag, Jr., “Elevator car assignment conditioned on minimum crite-
ria,” U.S. Patent 5 260 526, Nov. 9, 1993.
[57] D. J. Sirag, Jr., “Using fuzzy logic to determine elevator car assignment
utility,” U.S. Patent 5 248 860, Sept. 28, 1993.
[58] K. Sasaki, K. Yokota, H. Hattori, and N. Sata, “Method and apparatus
for controlling a group of elevators using fuzzy rules,” U.S. Patent 5 022
498, June 11, 1991.
[59] J. A. Stanley, H. Honma, D. S. Williams, T. Mori, and P. Simcik, “El-
evator car dispatching including passenger destination information and a
fuzzy logic algorithm,” U.S. Patent 20 070 045 052 (A1), Mar. 1, 2007.
[60] M. M. Rashid, B. Kasemi, A. Faruq, and A. Z. Alam, “Design of fuzzy
based controller for modern elevator group with floor priority constraints,”
in Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Mechatronics: Integrated Engineering Industrial Societal
Development, 2011, article 5937196, pp. 1–8.
[61] H. Kitano, Genetic Algorithms. Japan: Sangyo Tosho, 1993, p. 328.
[62] J. Alander, T. Tyni, and J. Ylinen, “Elevator group control using dis-
tributed genetic algorithm,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Artificial Neural Nets Genetic
Algorithms, 1995, pp. 400–403.
[63] A. Miravete, “Genetics and intense vertical traffic,” Elevator World, vol.
47, no. 7, pp. 118–120, 1999.
[64] T. Chen, Y. Hsu, and Y. Huang, “Optimizing the intelligent elevator
group control system by using genetic algorithm,” Adv. Sci. Lett., vol. 9, pp.
957–962, Apr. 2012.
[65] A. Fujino, T. Tobita, K. Segawa, K. Yoneda, and A. Togawa, “An eleva-
tor group control system with floor-attribute control method and system
optimization using genetic algorithms,” IEEE Trans Ind. Electron., vol. 44,
no. 4, pp. 546–552, 1997.
[66] S. Tsuji, “Group managing system for elevator cars,” U.S. Patent 5 780
789, July 14, 1998.
[67] E. L. Koh, J. O. Kim, and P. H. Hahn, “Group management control meth-
od for elevator,” U.S. Patent 6 000 504, Dec. 14, 1999.
[68] T. Tyni and J. Ylinen, “Evolutionary bi-objective optimisation in the
elevator car routing problem,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 169, no. 3, pp. 960–977,
2006.
[69] P. Cortés, J. Larrañeta, and L. Onieva, “Genetic algorithm for control-
lers in elevator groups: Analysis and simulation during lunchpeak traffic,”
Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 159–174, 2004.
[70] B. Bolat, P. Cortés, E. Yalcin, and M. Alisverisci, “Optimal car dispatch-
ing for elevator groups using genetic algorithms,” Intell. Automat. Soft Com-
put., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 89–99, 2010.
[71] M. L. Siikonen and J. Ylinen, “Method for controlling an elevator sys-
tem,” WO Patent 05 100 223 (A2), Oct. 27, 2005.
[72] T. Shintaro, “Elevator control apparatus using neural net,” UKGB Pat-
ent 2246214-A, Jan. 22, 1992.
[73] S. Kenji, M. Sandor, and N. Masami, “Elevator group supervisory con-
trol system using neural network,” Elevator World, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 81–86,
1996.
[74] C. Imrak and G. Barney, “Application of neural networks on traffic con-
trol,” in Proc. ELEVCON, 1998, pp. 140–148.
[75] B. L. Whitehall, D. J. Sirag, Jr., and B. A. Powell, “Elevator control neural
network,” U.S. Patent 5 672 853, Sept. 30, 1997.
[76] B. L. Whitehall, T. M. Christy, and B. A. Powell, “Method for continuous
learning by a neural network used in an elevator dispatching system,” U.S.
Patent 5 923 004, July 13, 1999.
[77] I. Naoki, K. Susumu, and N. Shoji, “Elevator group control system
tuned by a fuzzy neural network applied method,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Fuzzy Systems, 1995, pp. 1735–1740.
[78] C. Gu, G. Zhao, and Z. Liu, “Adaptive fuzzy logical elevator group con-
trol system based on artificial neural net,” Comput. Meas. Control, vol. 11, no.
1, pp. 947–949, 2003.
[79] M. Nakagawa, K. Sasaki, S. Markon, I. Nagashima, T. Midoritani, T.
Tanabe, and N. Ohta, “Elevator group supervisory control system,” U.S.
Patent 5 767 461, June 16, 1998.
[80] S. Mabu, L. Yu, J. Zhou, S. Eto, and K. Hirasawa, “A double-decker ele-
vator systems controller with idle cage assignment algorithm using genetic
network programming,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., vol. 114, no. 5,
pp. 487–496, 2010.
[81] Y. Ogoshi, H. Kimura, S. Hirose, and N. Osato, “Elevator group con-
trol system using multiagent system,” Syst. Comput. Japan, vol. 34, no. 1, pp.
45–58, 2003.
[82] D. Muñoz, C. Llanos, M. Ayala-Rincón, R. van Els, and R. Almeida,
“Implementation of dispatching algorithms for elevator systems using
reconfigurable architectures,” Eng. Applicat. Artif. Intell., vol. 21, no. 8, pp.
1309–1320, 2008.
[83] Z. T. Wang, D. F. Ji, F. Qiao, and Q. D. Wu, “Modeling and scheduling
elevator group control system based on MAS and negotiation mechanism
of agents,” Contr. Decis., vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1184–1188, 2007.
[84] D. Pepyne and C. Cassandras, “Optimal dispatching control for eleva-
tor systems during uppeak traffic,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 5,
no. 6, pp. 629–643, 1997.
[85] B. Bolat, O. Altun, and P. Cortés, “A particle swarm optimization al-
gorithm for optimal car-call allocation in elevator group control systems,”
Appl. Soft Comput. J., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 2633–2642, 2012.
[86] Z. Qun, S. Ding, C. Yu, and L. Xiaofeng, “Elevator group control system
modeling based on object oriented petri net,” Elevator World, vol. 49, no. 8,
pp. 99–105, 2001.
[87] K. Verma and J. Goubault-Larrecq, “Karp-Miller trees for a branch-
ing extension of VASS,” Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 7, no. 1, pp.
217–230, 2005.
[88] B. Bolat and P. Cortés, “Genetic and tabu search approaches for op-
timizing the hall call car allocation problem in elevator group systems,”
Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1792–1800, 2011.
[89] P. Cortés, L. Onieva, J. Muñuzuri, and J. Guadix, “A viral system algo-
rithm to optimize the car dispatching in elevator group control systems of
tall buildings,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 403–411, 2013.
[90] Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Transportation
Systems in Buildings CIBSE Guide D. London: CIBSE, 2005.
[91] F. Nowak and J. Luce, “Multicompartment elevator call assigning” U.S.
Patent 4 632 224, Dec. 30, 1986.
[92] K. Sasaki, S. Markon, and M. Makagawa, “Elevator group supervisory
control system using neural networks,” Elevator World, vol. 44, no. 2, pp.
81–90, 1996.
[93] T. Mori, Z. Bahjat, J. Stanley, M. Ross, M. Sahara, and H. Honma, “Con-
trol system and control method for reassigning the cars of a double-deck
elevator,” U.S. Patent 6 419 051, July 16, 2002.
[94] M. Kostka and K. Steinmann, “Method of controlling elevator installa-
tion with multiple cars,” U.S. Patent 6 508 333 B2, Jan. 21, 2003.
[95] M. Siikonen, “Procedure for control of an elevator group consisting
of double-decker elevators which optimizes passenger journey time,” U.S.
Patent 6 237 721, May 29, 2001.
[96] M. L. Siikonen, U.S. Patent 401874 B2, June 11, 2002.
[97] M. L. Siikonen and J. Sorsa, “Optimal control of double-deck eleva-
tor group using genetic algorithm,” Int. Trans. Oper. Res., vol. 10, no. 2, pp.
103–114, 2003.
[98] J. Ylinen and T. Tyni, “Genetic procedure for multi-deck elevator call
allocation,” U.S. Patent 6,293,368 B1, Sept. 25, 2001.
[99] M. Ruokokoskia, J. Sorsaa, M. L. Siikonen, and H. Ehtamo, “On the
quality of the assignment model for the elevator dispatching problem,”
submitted fpr publication.
[100] J. Sorsa, M. Siikonen, and H. Ehtamo, “Optimal control of double deck
elevator group using genetic algorithm,” Int. Trans. Oper. Res., vol. 10, no. 2,
pp. 103–114, 2003.
[101] L. Yu, J. Zhou, S. Mabu, K. Hirasawa, J. Hu, and S. Markon, “Elevator
group control system using genetic network programming with ACO con-
sidering transitions,” in Proc. SICE Annu. Conf., 2007, pp. 1330–1336.
[102] K. Hirasawa, T. Eguchi, J. Zhou, L. Yu, J. Hu, and S. Markon, “A double-
decker elevator group supervisory control system using genetic network
programming,” IEEE Trans Syst. Man Cybern. C, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 535–550,
2008.
[103] A. Valdivielso and T. Miyamoto, “Multicar-elevator group control
algorithm for interference prevention and optimal call allocation,” IEEE
Trans Syst. Man Cybern. A, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 311–322, 2011.
[104] S. Tanaka and M. Watanabe, “Optimization-based collision avoidance
in multi-car elevator systems,” in Proc. ICROS-SICE Int. Joint Conf., Fukuo-
ka, Japan, 2009, pp. 764–769.
[105] J. Liu, Y. Wu, J. Dai, M. Liu, C. Wu, and E. Gao, “Overstep control
analysis for multi-car elevator,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Modelling, Identification
Control, Wuhan, China, 2012, pp. 254–259.
[106] K. Ikeda, H. Suzuki, S. Markon, and H. Kita, “Traffic-sensitive con-
trollers for multi-car elevators; design, multi-objective, optimization and
analysis,” in Proc. SICE Annu. Conf., Takamatsu, Japan, 2007, pp. 2655–2662.
[107] T. Fujimura, S. Ueno, H. Tsuji, and H. Miwa, “Control algorithm for
multi-car elevators with high transportation flexibility,” in Proc. IEEE 2nd
Global Conf. Consumer Electronics, 2013, pp. 544–545.
[108] H. Ishihara and S. Kato, “Multi-car elevator control using dynamic zon-
ing,” in Proc. IEEE 2nd Global Conf. Consumer Electronics, 2013, pp. 546–549.
[109] M. Ikuta, K. Takahashi, and M. Inaba, “Strategy selection by reinforce-
ment learning for multi-car elevator systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Sys-
tems, Man, Cybernetics, 2013, pp. 2479–2484.
[110] A. Valdivielso and T. Miyamoto, “Multicar elevator group control: Av-
erage reward learning method for service completion time reduction and
interference prevention,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Control Applications Part
IEEE Multi-Conf. Systems Control, Yokohama, Japan, 2010, pp. 234–239.
[111] S. Markon, H. Suzuki, K. Ikeda, and H. Kita, “Direct control of multi-
car elevators with real-time GA,” in Proc. INES 11th Int. Conf. Intelligent En-
gineering Systems, Budapest, Hungary, 2007, pp. 191–194.
[112] L. Yu, S. Mabu, and K. Hirasawa, “Multi-car elevator system using
genetic network programming for high-rise building,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Systems Man Cybernetics, 2010, pp. 1216–1222.
[113] W. Chan, A. So, and K. Lam, “Dynamic zoning in elevator traffic con-
trol,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Elevator Technologies, Hong Kong, China, 1995, pp.
132–140.
[114] A. So and W. Chan, “Comprehensive dynamic zoning algorithms,”
Elevator World, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 99–109, 1997.
[115] Y. Xu, F. Luo, and J. Wang, “A new modeling method for elevator group
control system with cellular automata,” in Proc. 5th World Congr. Intelligent
Control Automation, 2004, vol. 4, pp. 3596–3599.
[116] Z. Li, “Traffic based on artificial immune algorithm research on dy-
namic zoning of elevator traffic based on artificial immune algorithm,” in
Proc. Control Automation Robotics Vision Conf., Guangzhou, China, 2004, vol.
3, pp. 2170–2171.
[117] Y. Xu, F. Luo, and X. Lin, “Hybrid destination registration elevator
group control system with artificial immune optimization algorithm,” in
Proc. 8th World Congr. Intelligent Control Automation, 2010, pp. 5067–5071.
[118] U. Aickelin, D. Dasgupta, and F. Gu, “Artificial immune systems,” in
Search Methodologies: Introductory Tutorials in Optimization and Decision Sup-
port Techniques, E. K. Burke and G. Kendall, Eds. New York: Springer, 2014,
pp. 187–211.
[119] Z. Li, H. Z. Tan, and Y. Zhang, Particle Swarm Optimization Applied to
Vertical Traffic Scheduling in Buildings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science).
Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2007, pp. 831–838.
[120] L. Fei, Z. Xiaocui, and X. Yuge, “A new hybrid elevator group control
system scheduling strategy based on particle swarm simulated annealing
optimization algorithm,” in Proc. 8th World Congr. Intelligent Control Auto-
mation, 2010, pp. 5121–5124.
[121] I. C. Trelea, “The particle swarm optimization algorithm: Conver-
gence analysis and parameter selection,” Inform. Processing Lett., vol. 85, no.
6, pp. 317–325, 2003.

August 2015  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  55