Topical Editor: Prof. Dr. Eun-Soo Kim, 3D Res.
03, 04(2012)1
10.1007/3DRes.04(2012)1
3DR EXPRESS
3D Methodology for Modeling and Analysis of Medium-Complexity
Mechanical Assemblies: Application in Elevator-Car Design
Georgios A. KARAOGLANIDIS • Nickolas S. SAPIDIS
Received: 27 October 2011 / Revised: 02 December 2011 / Accepted: 29 January 2012
© 3D Research Center, Kwangwoon University and Springer 2012
Abstract * This paper deals with design methods for
medium-complexity mechanical systems, and focuses on
two standard steps in such a method: “2D drawing”
(included in the early stages of design) and “3D CAD-
model simplification & defeaturing” (in the concluding
“analysis stages” of a design procedure), whose
contribution to mechanical design has always been a
controversial subject. On the basis of the state-of-the-art in
mechanical design, this “position paper” advocates
complete elimination of the above two steps, and details the
corresponding modified mechanical-design method.
Application of this new design-method on a real-life
industrial case (: elevator-car design) is fully analyzed,
demonstrating the method’s efficacy for medium-
complexity mechanical assemblies.
Keywords Design, 3D CAD, Integrated Analysis, Elevator,
Lift Car, and Defeaturing
1. Design Methods for Medium-Complexity
Assemblies
Design methods for mechanical products and assemblies
have been a constantly-developing topic of research and a
controversial subject for many decades. A general purpose
Georgios A. KARAOGLANIDIS1 ( ) • Nickolas S. SAPIDIS2(
) is almost “mission impossible” both when automatic
1
University of Western Macedonia, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, 50100 Kozani, Greece.
1
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Laboratory of Machine
Elements & Machine Design, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece.
2
University of Western Macedonia, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, 50100 Kozani, Greece.
E-mail: 1gkaraoglanidis@uowm.gr, 1gkar@meng.auth.gr
2
nsapidis@uowm.gr
w
methodology for the design of such systems can be
described as follows1-4:
C1. Analysis of customer requirements and detailed
formulation of the “design specifications”.
C2. Development of 2D sketches for the mechanical
assembly.
C3. Development of 2D sketches for the contained parts.
C4. Preliminary evaluation of the designed parts &
assembly.
C5. Redesign of sketches if necessary.
C6. Detailed 3D modeling of parts.
C7. Detailed 3D modeling of the assembly.
C8. Evaluation of the design with respect to the “design
specifications” of Step 1, with emphasis on product
lifecycle analysis (e.g., functionality).
C9. Simplification/Defeaturing of 3D CAD models – FE
modeling and strength analysis.
C10. Optimization and redesign if necessary.
C11. Design completed: Production of technical drawings
and of all related documentation for approval by
regulatory bodies.
The above (classical) mechanical-design methodology
(Steps C1-C11)  it is exactly this characterization
“classical” that is implied by the letter “C” appearing in the
above numbering scheme “C1-C11”  suffers from these
well-known disadvantages:
1. Transforming the “2D sketches” (produced in Steps C2
and C3) into the 3D models (required in Steps C6-C7)
procedures are sought as well as when this is done by
the designer interactively. Indeed, algorithmic
(automatic) transformation of a 2D sketch into a 3D
solid is an open research problem, where progress has
been extremely slow; see, e.g.5 and references therein.
That is why no current CAD system offers any “2D
sketch to 3D solid” tool. For the case that this “2D to
2 3D Res. 03, 04(2012)1
3D” transformation is done manually, surely current
CAD systems do offer some 2D-to-3D modeling tools
for the designer to use, like “solid extrusion”, “cut/slot
extrusion”, “surface revolution”, “surface lofting”,
“solid or surface sweep”, etc. These tools produce
elements useful for composing the required 3D model
and their capabilities are constantly being extended, but,
unfortunately, no complete method is offered to the
designer seeking to produce a valid 3D CAD-model
capturing all details and “design-intent implications” of
a given “2D sketch”.
2. The younger generation of engineers and designers are
very much acquainted with 3D modeling/visualization
and much less familiar with 2D sketches or ISO-
standard based mechanical drawings to the point that,
for most of them, the preliminary steps C2 & C3, and
the related 2D models, instead of offering help, they are
just a burden and a waste of time.
3. The above classical methodology includes as a standard
component (in Step C9) the phase where 3D models are
simplified and defeatured so that the corresponding
FEM models are simpler and more economical. State of
the art PCs offer processing power and storage that lead
us, and also other engineers, to wonder about the
usefulness of this model-simplification part of the
FEM-analysis Step C9. The additional fact, that even
for medium-complexity structures there are no robust
criteria for a FEM program (or for a human FEM
analyst) to specify design features that are unimportant
(and thus removable), further strengthens our assertion
that model-simplification should be avoided when this
is not absolutely necessary.
The above critique of the classical mechanical-design
methodology led us to the present “position paper”
proposing the following “fully 3D” alternative design
method that focuses on medium-complexity mechanical
assemblies (the steps involved in this method are numbered
as “T1-T9” with the letter “T” implying exactly the Three-
dimensional nature of this method):
T1. Analysis of the given customer requirements and
identification of the corresponding “design
specifications”.
T2. Assembly layout using 3D “bounding boxes” or more-
accurate 3D models or even intelligent spatial models
(e.g., based on octrees).
T3. Detailed 3D design of parts.
T4. Detailed 3D design of the complete assembly.
T5. Evaluation of the design.
T6. Redesign if necessary.
T7. FE modeling and strength analysis of the exact 3D
assembly model without any defeaturing or
simplification.
T8. Optimization and redesign if necessary.
T9. Design completed: Production of technical drawings
and of all related documentation for approval by
regulatory bodies.
A principal innovative feature of the proposed
methodology is that it is not using 2D drawing in any stage
of the design process. Instead, the whole design process
takes place in a fully 3D modeling environment. This
methodology allows for more accurate spatial design fully
serving the complex design requirements and constraints
imposed by challenging mechanical-design applications like
elevator-car design. The main advantage of the present
methodology is that design time can be reduced
significantly depending on the designer’s experience and
expertise in 3D CAD6. Moreover, the design process can be
more efficient because modern CAD programs can provide
sophisticated optimization tools, e.g., to reduce weight and
volume of the assembly. Below, the above proposed
methodology is applied to the case of elevator car design. It
is noted that the whole design and analysis project, detailed
in Sects. 2-5, was performed by one mechanical engineer
(the first author of this paper) in a period of 60 days (full-
time employment on this project).
Important Remark: By no means our proposing the above
“2D-drawing free” method should be interpreted as
implying that we consider 2D-drawing & 2D-sketching
useless for mechanical design. It is beyond doubt and well-
documented in dozens of technical papers (see, e.g.5) and
references therein) that there are many tasks, e.g., in the
early stages of mechanical design (like: “design-problem
analysis”, “idea generation & exploration”, “new concept
development”, “designer-designer or designer-customer
communication”) where 2D sketching/drawing is often the
ideal tool.
2. Lift-car design case study: Specifications
and design goals
A lift or an elevator is a vertical means of transport that
efficiently allows people to move between the floors of a
building. Attempts to build lifting machines are well known
from ancient times but the starting point of lift history is the
introduction of the safety elevator by Elisha Otis in 18527.
Otis invented a governor device that engages a knurled
roller, locking the elevator to its guides preventing it from
descending at excessive speed. Since then, there have been
many improvements made to various aspects of elevators,
such as increased speed, safety features, and the design of
their interior.
The main components of a modern lift are a traction
machine or a hydraulic pump as its prime mover (depending
on the type of drive), the lift car, the counterweight (if used),
the guide rails, the doors, safety gear and governor, the wire
ropes and the electronic equipment8. Today, a great amount
of interest is directed towards safety aspects. Safety refers
to the situation that the lift might be in a freefall or its speed
is increasing at extreme values. Legislation describes, with
full detail, the necessary mechanical and electronic control
equipment for the safety of both the lift and the passengers
or cargo9-11.
The most critical part of the lift assembly is the lift car.
The lift car is a steel frame of welded or bolted construction
which provides a cradle in which the lift cabin sits. It has to
be of sufficient strength to withstand the stresses applied to
it when the lift is accelerated and the compressive forces
resulting from a fully laden cabin striking the buffers at
speed or when the safety gear is actuated. The main parts of
the car are: the crosshead (1), the uprights (2), the bottom
channels (3), the brackets (4), the cabin’s mounting points
(5), the guide shoes (6) and the safety gear (7) as shown in
Figure 1a. Below, detailed design of the lift car is performed
using the proposed “fully 3D” design method (Steps T1-T9).
3D Res. 03, 04(2012)1 3

Figure 1. [Left] The main parts of a lift car, and [Right] the corresponding "exploded view" of these parts.

Step T1: Regarding design/modeling of the lift-car’s on it. The dimensions of a single cabin for 8 persons may
layout and parts, many variations exist. E.g., wire ropes vary depending on the dimensions of the well, but in most
may be attached directly to the frame or pass around cases the total external height is equal to 2325 mm. This is
sheaves placed above or below it. Also, for guiding the lift the value also used in the present case study. Also, it was
car along the guide rails, while some manufacturers prefer decided that the lift car must be able to carry (a) 8 persons
guide shoes others use rollers. These and all other “design (cargo) corresponding to a total of 600 kg, (b) the cabin, (c)
decisions” must be taken in relation to the following its own weight. These correspond to a 1000 kg total weight
“design specifications” implied by the lift-car design for all analysis purposes. In table 1 the final specifications
problem: are summarized.
1. The lift car must be compatible with all types of lifts
according to EN 81, and it must satisfy the strength Table 1. Design specifications for the lift car
specifications and all other requirements prescribed in Distance between Guides (DBG) 600 to 1400 mm
EN 81. Cargo 600 kg
2. It has to be lightweight in order to allow for extra Speed 0,63 m/sec
weight for cabin equipment such as stone floors, Both hydraulic and
glazing and glass doors. Type of drive traction
3. It has to be compact but should also allow for easy Stopping time 0,4 sec
inspection, servicing and replacement of all main parts
of the lift.
4. It has to operate with all types of lift drives (traction or
hydraulic).
5. It has to be particularly easy to be installed without the
need of special tools or qualified personnel.
6. The final assembly must be modular so that critical
components, like guide shoes and safety gear, could be
re-specified according to the customer’s changing
needs.
7. The basic dimensions of the lift car must be able to
change by replacement of a small number of parts, so
that the lift car fits in a variety of wells.
The first decision that has to be taken (which is the main
task performed in the context of this Step T1 of the design
process) relates to the overall dimensions and the cargo
Fig. 2. Initialization of the lift-car design process.
weight of the lift car. The total height of the car is
determined by the dimensions of the cabin(s) to be mounted
4 3D Res. 03, 04(2012)1

3. Detailed 3D Modeling and Design Analysis guiding shoes.

Step T2: In order to define the basic starting points for the
preliminary draft, a DBG of 1000 mm was selected. DBG
stands for Distance Between Guides and is a crucial
dimension which is directly related to the width of both the
well and the cabin. Also, for the external diameter of the
hydraulic cylinder the value 200 mm was selected. In
Figure 2, a sketch is shown were (1) is the car’s middle
plane, (2) is the plane defined by the guide rails, (3) is the
external diameter of the hydraulic cylinder and (4) are the
Given the predetermined height of the cabin and the
selected values for DBG and for the diameter of the
hydraulic cylinder, we proceed to Step T3, fully
specifying/modeling the crosshead and the uprights; see
Figure 1. The next step is to define the mounting points for
the wire ropes clamping devices. In the case of a hydraulic
driven elevator, four wire ropes are necessary in order to
support the construction properly. The selected position of
the mounting points is shown in Figure 3.

Fig. 3. The mounting points of the wire ropes clamping devices (hydraulic driven elevator).

Fig. 4. The mounting points of the wire ropes clamping devices (traction driven elevator).

This asymmetrical design of the mounting points is due to
the cooperating pulley’s step in order to minimize the
applied moments which tend to yaw the lift car on its
vertical axis. In the case of a traction driven elevator five
wire ropes are usually needed and in Figure 4 the final
mounting points are shown.
The lift car should be equipped with guide shoes which
slide on the surface of the guide rails. The shoes, in their
simplest form can be of solid steel, iron, aluminum or
bronze. Solid shoes are ideal for heavy goods lifts in
contrast to passenger lifts where the shoes are normally
spring loaded, or resiliently mounted, to reduce noise in the
lift car and to absorb small discrepancies in the guide rail
alignment. The shoes are often made of steel with a nylon
insert to form the running surface. Use of such materials
reduces noise and minimizes needs for lubrication. The
guide shoes are placed at the upper and at the lower end of
each upright, which is a standard practice in lift-car design.
Great importance is given to the proper design of the
tripping device for the safety gear. The safety gear must be
tripped when the downward or upward speed of the elevator
exceeds the given limits or when one or more wire ropes are
3D Res. 03, 04(2012)1 5

cut. In the case of a hydraulic driven elevator, an
instantaneous safety gear is usually installed where the
speeds do not exceed 0,63 m/sec. This is because the small
stopping distance results in heavy shock and strain, not only
to the lift equipment but also to the passengers. For speeds
in excess of 1 m/sec, which are common in traction driven
elevators, progressive safety gear must be used. This device
clamps the guide rails by applying a limited pressure,
bringing the car progressively to a standstill. Two tripping
devices were designed, as shown in Figure 5.

Fig. 5. Safety gear tripping devices a) for a traction driven elevator and b) for a hydraulic driven elevator.

Fig. 6. The motion of the pedal in the case of a wire rope clamping device failure.

In both cases the mechanism consists of a pedal directly assembly will eject and push the pedal downwards as
assembled below the wire rope clamping device. In the case shown in Figure 6.
of failure of the clamping device, the lower part of its

Fig. 7. The final design of a) hydraulic driven elevator b) traction driven elevator.
6 3D Res. 03, 04(2012)1
Fully detailed 3D modeling of all parts, according to Step
T3 of the “fully 3D” methodology, was necessary in order
to precisely define the dimensions of the components of
both tripping devices. The safety gear was mounted at the
lower part of the car frame so as to allow for easy
inspection and servicing.
Finally, an extension to the brackets was designed in
order to allow for cabins with length greater then 1000mm
to fit. The extension was designed to have multiple
mounting points so as to allow an adjustable bracket length
from 1000 mm to 1500 mm. The proposed complete
assembly, after the refinements implied by Steps T4, T5 and
T6, is depicted in Figure 7.
4. Materials and Manufacturing Aspects
Most of the parts of the proposed assembly are sheet metal
parts. In order to enhance production and reduce production
time, an analysis of the available manufacturing processes
is also included in Steps T5 & T6 (: “design evaluation” &
“redesign”) of the employed “fully 3D” design
methodology.
The most common sheet-metal forming processes are
punching and laser cutting. Each one of these processes is
Fig. 8. Stress distribution and displacements of the final lift car.
5. Finite Element Analysis
Step T7: In order to verify the total strength of the designed
structure, calculations were carried out using an
automatically-generated finite element model in
cooperation with the CAD software that allows for easy and
rapid design changes to efficiently support Step T8 of the
present design method (see Section 1). One major decision,
in the present analysis, is that the FEM model used
corresponds to the complete 3D model without any
simplification or defeaturing. Defeaturing is a common
found to have a significant number of advantages and
disadvantages. Punching is the most cost effective process
for making holes in strip or sheet metal for average to high
production volumes with a precision that depends on the
condition of both punches and dies. Laser cutting, on the
other hand, gives higher precision, since the laser beam
does not wear during the application process, with the great
disadvantage of its high power consumption with an
industrial efficiency which ranges from 5% to 15%. The
need of accuracy in the final construction leads us to prefer
laser cutting as the standard manufacturing process.
Regarding the material for the parts of this assembly St
52.3 – S355J2G4 is selected. This choice is based on the
facts that this standard material has adequate yield strength
of 355 N/mm2, excellent manufacturing behaviour and can
be easily found in the local market in sheets of various
dimensions.
An important design decision is that the whole assembly
includes only bolted connections and no welding. The
principle reason for this decision is that most lift
installations do require slide adjustments during and after
assembly. The final assembly of the lift car will involve use
of jigs especially designed for the present project so that
satisfactory dimensional accuracy can be achieved.
practice used by many engineers and designers12-14 due to
solving time limitations with the great risk of inaccurate
results in critical parts of the structure. The present
methodology (Section 1) has fully eliminated
defeaturing/simplification from the FEM-Analysis stage
which leads to a smaller number of iterations in the “design
finalization” Step T8.
Shell elements were used for meshing sheet metal parts
and solid elements were used to mesh the more complicated
geometries of the guide shoes and the safety gear15. The
analysis includes the extreme load condition appearing at
3D Res. 03, 04(2012)1
the critical moment when the elevator is freefalling and the
instantaneous safety gear is forcing it to stop. This extreme
loading condition is not set by EN 81, thus it was chosen on
the basis of our “design specifications” (Section 2) resulting
in a total mass of 1000 kg, a necessary stopping time of 0,4
sec and a lift speed of 0,63 m/sec. Under these assumptions
the car is loaded with a total vertical force of 16750 N
which is applied at the mounting points of the cabin to the
Fig. 9. Stress distribution at the mounting points of the cabin.
Fig. 10. Stress distribution on the lower guiding shoes and on the safety gear.
In Figure 9, the stress distribution at the mounting points
of the cabin is shown, while Figure 10 presents stress
distribution on the lower guiding shoes and on the safety
gear.
The stress distributions presented in Figures 9 and 10
fully justify our proposed design methodology which is free
of any CAD-model simplification. Indeed, near the hole in
area A and near the fillet in area B significant stresses
appear: in area A the stress is σA = 91 N/mm2 (equal to 55%
of the maximum stress), and in area B σB = 122 N/mm2
(74% of the maximum stress). In order to establish that
defeaturing often produces significantly different analysis
7
lift car.
The complete structure along with the corresponding
distributions of stress and displacement are shown in Figure
8. These are completely satisfactory as they correspond to a
maximum Von Misses stress of 165 N/mm2 and a vertical
displacement of 2.37 mm which are acceptable by industry
standards.
results, we iterate, in the following subsection, the above
analysis for two simplified models of the lift car, and we
compare the obtained results with those reported above for
the exact CAD model of the lift car.
5.1 Exact versus Defeatured FE Models:
Comparison of Analysis Results
It is a standard strategy in FE analysis to defeature
(simplify) complex CAD models, as it is considered that
defeaturing leads to analysis results not significantly
8 3D Res. 03, 04(2012)1

different from those calculated using exact CAD models16-18.
In order to show that the above approach is not valid and
that defeaturing often produces inaccurate results, we
compare stress results calculated using the exact CAD
model (Model 1) against those produced using two slightly
defeatured FE models (Models 2 & 3). In Model 2, the hole
in area A of the original Model 1 (see Figure 9) was
suppressed, and, in Model 3, the curved fillet in area B of
Model 1 (see Figure 9) was simplified to a straight and
sharp fillet. Details of both Models 2 and 3 are shown in
Figure 11.

Fig. 11. Stress distribution in the defeatured Models 2 and 3.

Table 2. Number of elements in the three FE models Comparing Models 1 and 2, maximum Von Misses stresses
FE MODEL Number of elements are not much different: The calculated maximum Von
Model 1 98912 Misses stress was 165 N/mm2 for Model 1 and 162 N/mm2
Model 2 97767 for Model 2 (different by only 1.8%). However, in area A of
Model 3 97673 Model 2, a stress of σA = 44 N/mm2 was calculated which is
about 51% smaller than the corresponding value of σA = 91
These simplifications reduced the number of elements in N/mm2 calculated for Model 1. Finally, the calculated
both Models 2 and 3 and thus the corresponding maximum displacements are 2,37 mm for Model 1 and 2,33
computation time. In Table 2, the number of elements in for Model 2.
each one of Models 1, 2, and 3 is presented.

Fig. 12. Stress distribution for the Models 2 and 3.

3D Res. 03, 04(2012)1 9

Fig. 13. Displacements for the Models 2 and 3.

Comparing Models 1 and 3, the situation is different as In figures 15 and 16, the constructed elevators-car is
calculated maximum Von Misses stresses differ presented.
significantly: The calculated maximum stress is 165
N/mm2 for Model 1 and 189 N/mm2 for Model 3 (a
significant difference of 14.5%). In area B of Model 3 σB =
137 N/mm2, which is 11% larger than the corresponding
value of σB = 122 N/mm2 calculated for Model 1. Finally,
the calculated maximum displacements are 2,37 mm for
Model 1 and 2,35 for Model 3. The stress distribution and
the displacements for the Models 2 and 3 are shown and in
Figures 12 and 13, respectively.
The above experimental study clearly demonstrates that
stress results for simplified CAD models are often
significantly different from those corresponding to the
original exact model of a structure. This fully justifies our
proposal of the present “fully 3D” mechanical-design
method which is completely free of any Fig. 15. Side view of the constructed elevator-car.
defeaturing/simplification of CAD models.
In figure 14, constructed parts of the elevator-car before
the final assembly are shown.

Fig. 16. Bottom view of the constructed elevator-car.

Fig. 14. Parts of the constructed elevator-car during assembling.

10
6. Conclusions
This paper deals with design methods for medium-
complexity mechanical systems in view of (a) the state-of-
the-art in computer hardware and CAD/CAE software, and
(b) the competence of modern engineers in 3D CAD. This
research has focused on these two standard components of
the classical mechanical-design methodology: (i) 2D
sketching/drawing, and (ii) 3D model defeaturing /
simplification prior to FE model creation. We have
advocated that components (i) & (ii) have significant
disadvantages and one should consider also alternative
design methods that are free of (i) and (ii). Such a method
has been presented in Section 1, followed by its application
in a current industrial project dealing with lift-car design
and analysis. A thorough analysis of this industrial design-
project has been presented in Sections 2-5, demonstrating
applicability and effectiveness of the proposed design
method for medium-complexity mechanical systems.
The main advantages of the proposed “fully 3D”
mechanical-design method are:
A1. Since the proposed method is “fully 3D”, it is
completely free of the often cumbersome
collaboration/dialogue between 2D CAD models and
3D CAD models. This is a major point, as 2D CAD
models are based on tools and objects that are
completely different and often incompatible with those
involved in 3D CAD. And, as far as automatic “2D-to-
3D transformation of models” is concerned, it is
evident that this is still an open research problem, and,
for some cases, a problem that will never have an
automatic/algorithmic solution.
A2. “Fully 3D” modeling offers excellent foundation to
support collaboration of engineers and designers of
different specialities using different CAD systems (e.g.,
in the case of elevator design: civil engineers,
mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, industrial
designers, etc).
A3. Since the product model analyzed is always exact, the
produced analysis results are always highly accurate
and reliable (but: see also the corresponding negative
point D1 below).
Surely, the proposed “fully 3D” mechanical-design
method is not free of drawbacks:
D1. This “fully 3D” methodology unavoidably produces
complex/larger CAD & FE models and larger files,
thus, it is quite demanding regarding computer
hardware resources, for data storage & processing,
visualization and user interaction.
D2. Since the created CAD models are always 3D and exact,
the initial stages of the “fully 3D” design-method do
not progress as fast as the corresponding stages in the
classical design method of Steps C1-C11 (Section 1).
Our current research on this subject focuses on
incorporating the proposed “fully 3D” design method into
an appropriate Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)
environment, so that the advantages of this method are
amplified and its drawbacks are reduced as much as
possible.
3D Res. 03, 04(2012)1
Acknowledgement
The research of N. Sapidis has been co-financed by the
European Union (European Social Fund - ESF) and Greek
national funds through the Operational Program "Education
and Lifelong Learning" of the National Strategic Reference
Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program: THALIS.
References
1. Ertas A., Jones J. (1996) The Engineering Design Process.
2nd Ed. New York, N.Y., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2. Ullman D. G. (2009) The Mechanical Design Process, Mc
Graw Hill, 4th edition.
3. Lee K. Y., Price M. A., Armstrong C. G., Larson M.,
Samuelsson K. (2003) CAD-TO-CAE integration through
automated model simplification and adaptive modeling,
Proceedings of International Conference on Adaptive
Modeling and Simulation.
4. Zhu H., Menq C. H. (2002) B-Rep model simplification by
automatic fillet/round suppressing for efficient automatic
feature recognition, Computer-Aided Design 34(2): 109-123.
5. Kyratzi S., Sapidis N. (2009) Extracting a Polyhedron from a
Single-view Sketch: Topological Construction of a
Wireframe Sketch with Minimal Hidden Elements,
Computers and Graphics 33(3): 270-279.
6. Mihailidis Α., Samaras Z., Nerantzis I., Fontaras G.,
Karaoglanidis G. (2009) The design of a Formula Student
race car: a case study. Proceedings of the IMechE Part D: J.
Automobile Engineering 223: 805-818.
7. Otis E. G. (1861) Improvement in Hoisting Apparatus,
Elevator Brake Patent Number(s) 31:128.
8. Snehal T. (2009) Traction in Elevators, Elevator World, India.
9. European Committee for Standardization (1999) European
Standard EN 81-1 Safety rules for the construction and
installation of lifts - Part 1: Electric lifts.
10. European Committee for Standardization (1999) European
Standard EN 81-2 Safety rules for the construction and
installation of lifts - Part 2: Hydraulic lifts.
11. International Electrotechnical Commission (2005) IEC
62061 Safety of machinery - Functional safety of safety-
related electrical, electronic and programmable electronic
control systems.
12. Thakur A., Banerjee A. G., Gupta S. K. (2008) A survey of
CAD model simplification techniques for physics-based
simulation applications, Computer-Aided Design 41: 65-80.
13. White D. R., Saigal S., Owen S. J. (2003) Meshing
complexity of single part CAD models. Proceedings of the
12th International Meshing Roundtable Conference.
14. Sheffer A. (2001) Model simplification for meshing using
face clustering, Computer- Aided Design 33(13): 925-944.
15. Alkin C., Imrak C. E., Kocabas H. (2005) Solid Modeling
and Finite Element Analysis of an Overhead Crane Bridge,
Czech Technical University in Prague, Acta Polytechnica
45(3).
16. Dey S., Shepard M. S., Georges M. K. (1997) Elimination of
the adverse effects of small model features by the local
modification of automatically generated meshes,
Engineering with Computers 13(3): 134-151.
17. Joshi N., Dutta D. (2003) Feature simplification techniques
for freedom surface models, Journals of Computing and
Information Science in Engineering 3: 177-186.
18. Mobley A. V., Caroll M. P., Canann S. A. (1998) An object
approach to geometry defeaturing for finite element meshing,
Proceedings of 7th International Meshing Roundtable.