EP0365782B1 - Method and device for the group control of double-compartment lifts - Google Patents

Abstract

In a group of elevators with double cars, the assignment of such double cars to floor calls takes place at scanner positions alpha in two procedural steps, according to two parameters: primarily by assignment of the individual cars of all double cars by logical decision, according to a criteria chain (KK), and subsidiarily by assignment of the double cars according to the minimal loss time of all involved passengers. The individual elevators each have a microcomputer system with a calculating device and are connected with each other by way of a comparator circuit to form a group control. The optimal individual cars are assigned for each elevator by floor in the associated individual car/call assignment memories. The optimal double car is selected by comparison of the loss times of all elevators calculated as the total operating costs Kg ( alpha ) and is assigned to the respective floor in the associated double car/call assignment memory. For the total servicing costs Kg ( alpha ), a special cost calculating algorithm is provided. With the separate assignment of individual cars and double cars, this group control renders possible a complete utilization of the double car functions as well as a good matching to different operating and traffic conditions. At the same time, the minimal waiting time of the passengers is optimized.

Description

The invention relates to a method and a device for group control of elevators with double cabins, according to the preambles of claims 1 and 10, wherein to determine the elevator that is optimally usable for the operation of a floor call on a floor E in a scanning position α as the lost time of all In the case of a call operation, passengers involved with defined operating costs serve as a decision criterion and these operating costs are calculated and stored separately for each elevator, within the framework of a cost calculation cycle for each scanning position α - regardless of whether there is a floor call or not - and subsequently for all elevators together as part of one Cost comparison cycle are compared in order to allocate the elevator with the lowest operating costs to the relevant scanning position α as a favorite for the operation of a possible floor call by means of a control device and also to assign the Z to provide a certain single cabin of the corresponding double cabin for the scanning position to be operated. Such group controls are intended to make it possible to allocate the double cabins to the floor calls in such a way that minimum average waiting times and minimum average destination travel times of the passengers are achieved. With elevator groups, this leads to an increase in the conveying capacity, to an improved operating behavior and thus to a general traffic relief.

In a group control for elevators with single cabins known from European Patent No. 0 032 213, assignments of the cabins to the floor calls are optimized in terms of time (and route-dependent). Here, by means of a computing device in the form of a microprocessor Scanning cycle of a first scanner on each floor, whether there is a floor call or not, from the distance between the floor and the car position indicated by a selector, the intermediate stops to be expected within this distance and the current car load, the time lost by waiting passengers and the Time lost by passengers in the cabin is calculated as a proportional loss. The cabin load at the time of the calculation is corrected in such a way that the anticipated passengers and those who have derived from the number of passengers in and out of the past are taken into account in future stops. This loss, also called service costs, is stored in a cost memory. During a cost comparison cycle using a second scanner, the operating costs of all elevators are compared with one another by means of a comparison device, an allocation instruction which designates the floor to which the relevant car is optimally assigned in time can be stored in an allocation memory of the elevator with the lowest operating costs.

With the Swiss patent No. 660 585, a control for an elevator group with double cabins has become known, in which the group control described above has been improved in such a way that the assignment of the individual cabins from double cabins to the floor calls can be optimized in terms of time. The operating costs for each of the two individual cabins of a double cabin are calculated and compared with each other by means of a comparison circuit, the lower operating costs being stored in the cost memory of the elevator in question, and where there are assignment instructions for rectified floor calls from two adjacent floors and / or coincidences of car calls and scanning positions the operating costs to be saved are reduced. The control of the elevator group interprets the double cabin as two single cabins that compete with each other.

The total loss known from European Patent No. 0 032 213, also known as operating costs, depends only on the position and direction of the calls, the cabin load and the operating state of the cabin, and is described in Swiss Patent No. 660 585 for each one Double cabins calculated. With such a calculation, the mutual influences and dependencies of the two individual cabins are not fully taken into account. The lower operating costs of the individual cabins of a double cabin are then stored in the cost storage of the elevator in question and are compared by floors with the lower operating costs of the other double cabins in the elevator group. In such controls, the floor calls are not assigned to the optimal double cabin, but to the optimal individual cabin. A uniform distribution of the passengers to the double cabins in the elevator group is therefore impaired during normal operation of the elevator system. By separately calculating the operating costs of the two individual cabins, only coincidences between cabin calls of the relevant cabin and scanning position can be promoted by reducing the operating costs of the relevant cabin. Stopping on adjacent floors, whereby the other single car not involved in a car call is not promoted. An optimal allocation of floor calls to the double cabins will therefore not be possible in all cases. It follows from the above that a group control for elevators with double cabins, which considers the two cabins of a double cabin as single cabins, cannot achieve optimal results in terms of minimum number of stops, short average waiting times for passengers and increased conveying capacity.

The invention is based on the object, starting from Swiss Patent No. 660 585, to a method and a device create, in group controls for elevators with double cabins, the two degrees of freedom given by the single cabins of each double cabin and the double cabins of each group to be fully used for call control. The usability of a double cabin with regard to a floor call should not only be determined by the position and direction of this floor call as well as the load and operating states of the two single cabins, but also by the different types of call operation resulting from the possibility of operating two adjacent calls at the same time the two single cabins result. When calculating the operating costs of a double cabin, the mutual cost effects of the two single cabins must therefore be taken into account. Furthermore, the method and equipment should be designed in such a way that they can be easily and quickly adapted to different operating and traffic conditions and that the required computing effort is minimal.

To achieve this object, the invention proposes with the features characterized in claims 1 and 10, taking into account the mutual influence of the partial operating costs calculated separately for each single cabin, total operating costs (e.g. recursively) for each double cabin in the elevator group for all scanning positions to calculate, whereby if there are allocation instructions for the same floor calls of two adjacent floors (congruence) and / or coincidences of cabin calls and scanning positions, the total operating costs to be saved are reduced, the total operating costs of all elevators are compared using a comparison device, each in An allocation instruction can be stored in an allocation memory of the elevator with the lowest total operating costs, which indicates the floor to which the respective double cabin is optimally assigned in time, and by means of an Au selection based on criteria chains of Each double cabin is assigned a specific single cabin to the floor call in such a way that the servicing of cabin calls and rectified floor calls on the same floor, of rectified floor calls from two adjacent floors and of car calls and rectified floor calls from two adjacent floors is promoted so that overlaps of "own" stop positions, ie stop a single cabin on a floor where the other single cabin has stopped shortly before or will stop shortly afterwards is reduced to unavoidable exceptions and that overlaps of "foreign" stopping positions, ie stopping a double cabin on a floor where another double cabin of the same group stops simultaneously, be avoided if possible.

The advantages achieved by the invention are that the double cabin with the lowest total operating costs is allocated to a floor call, with a single floor call and non-existent coincidence and / or congruence, the less loaded cabin or optionally also the one in the direction of travel " front "or" rear "cabin is allocated to the floor call and the stopping on the same floor with cabin call and rectified floor call and / or on adjacent floors with rectified floor calls or cabins and rectified floor calls is promoted in such a way that there are fewer stops, the individual double cabins den Distribute total traffic evenly among each other, the two single cabins of a double cabin are filled evenly, which reduces waiting times on the floors and reduces travel times, while waiting times in the non-operating cabin for any intermediate stops for the "absolutely n necessary "minimum remain limited and the delivery rate is increased. Furthermore, this solution is characterized in that priorities for the operating behavior of the elevators can be achieved through the adjustable parameters, so that, for example, in both single cabins the same load is aimed for, or that the load balancing only becomes effective when the imbalance of the two single cabins can be set.

Fig. 1

eine schematische Darstellung der erfindungsgemässen Gruppensteuerung für einen Aufzug einer aus drei Aufzügen bestehenden Aufzugsgruppe,

Fig. 2

eine schematische Darstellung einer Vergleichsschaltung eines Aufzuges der Gruppensteuerung gemäss Fig. 1 und

Fig. 3

ein Diagramm des zeitlichen Ablaufes der Steuerung.

The invention is explained in more detail below with reference to an exemplary embodiment shown in the drawing. Show it:

Fig. 1

1 shows a schematic representation of the group control according to the invention for an elevator of an elevator group consisting of three elevators,

Fig. 2

a schematic representation of a comparison circuit of an elevator of the group control according to FIG. 1 and

Fig. 3

a diagram of the timing of the control.

1, 1 denotes an elevator shaft of an elevator a, an elevator group consisting of, for example, three elevators a, b and c. A conveyor machine 2 drives, via a conveyor cable 3, a double cabin 4, which is guided in the elevator shaft 1 and is formed from two single cabins 5, 6 arranged in a common car frame, sixteen floors E1 to E16 being operated according to the elevator system chosen as an example. The distance between the two single cabins 5, 6 is selected so that it corresponds to the distance between two adjacent floors. The carrier 2 is controlled by a drive control known from European Patent No. 0 026 406, the setpoint generation, the control functions and the initiation of the stop being implemented by means of a microcomputer system 7, and with 8 the measuring and actuating elements of the drive control which are symbolized are connected to the microcomputer system 7 via a first interface IF 1. Each single cabin 5, 6 of the double cabin 4 has a load measuring device 9, the respective operating state Z the cabin signaling device 10 and cabin call transmitter 11. The devices 9, 10 are connected to the microcomputer system 7 via the first interface IF 1. The car call transmitter 11 and the floor call transmitter 12 provided on the floors are connected to the microcomputer system 7, for example, via an input device 13 which has become known with European Patent No. 0 062 141 and a second interface IF 2.
The microcomputer system 7 consists of a storey call memory RAM 1, two cabin call memories RAM 2, RAM 3 assigned to the single cabins 5, 6 of the double cabin 4, a load memory RAM 4 storing the current load P _{M of} each single cabin 5, 6, two the operating state Z of the single cabins 5 , 6 storing memories RAM 5, RAM 6, two tabular partial cost memories RAM 7, RAM 8 assigned to the single cabins of the elevator, a first total cost memory RAM 9, a second total cost memory RAM 10, a single cabin / call assignment memory RAM 11, one with the elevator the lowest operating costs per scanner position and direction of operation, characterizing the double cabin / call allocation memory RAM 12, a program memory EPROM, a power failure-proof data memory DBRAM and a microprocessor CPU which is connected via a bus B to the memories RAM 1 to RAM 12, EPROM and DBRAM. R1 and R2 denote a first and a second scanner of a scanner, the scanner R1, R2 being registers by means of which addresses corresponding to the floor numbers and the direction of travel are formed. The cost memories RAM 7 to RAM 10 each have one or more storage locations which can be assigned to the individual possible cabin positions. R3 and R4 denote the selectors corresponding to the individual cabins in the form of a register which, when the cabin is moving, indicates the address of the floor on which the cabin can still stop. At a standstill, R3 and R4 point to the floor where a call can be answered or to a possible cabin position (for "blind" floors). As is known from the drive control mentioned above, the selector addresses are assigned target paths which are compared with a target path generated in a setpoint generator. If these paths are identical and a stop command is present, the delay phase is initiated. If there is no stop command, the selectors R3 and R4 are switched to the next floor.
A comparison circuit VS linked to the partial cost memories RAM 7, RAM 8, the total cost memories RAM 9, RAM 10 and the single cabin / call assignment memory RAM 11, see FIG. 2.
The microcomputer systems 7 of the individual elevators a, b, c are via a comparison device 14 known from European Patent No. 0 050 304 and a third interface IF 3 as well as via a Partyline transmission system 15 and known from European Patent No. 0 050 305 a fourth interface IF 4 connected to one another and in this way form the group control according to the invention.

The time sequence and the function of the group control described above are explained below with reference to FIG. 3:
When an event relating to a specific elevator a, b, c of the group occurs, such as entering a car call, assigning a floor call, changing the load or door states or changing the selector position, the first scanner R1 assigned to the elevator in question begins with one cycle, hereinafter referred to as the KBZ cost calculation cycle, starting from the "rear" selector position in the direction of travel of the cabin (in the case of no direction of travel starting with the lower cabin), with the circulation also being possible in a different direction or sequence. The event may occur at elevator a (time I). With each scanning position, the microprocessor CPU of the microcomputer system 7 now creates one for each single cabin 5, 6 and for the double cabin 4 according to the patent claims the time loss of all passengers involved is calculated as a sum, also known as operating costs K, the individual cost components being determined by the group control for elevators with double cabins, which works according to the following principle.

• einem von der Stockwerkdistanzen-Fahrzeit abhängigen Anteil m·t_m
• einem vom Betriebszustand der beiden Einfachkabinen abhängigen Anteil KAE
• einem von Rufbedienung an Zwischenstockwerken (beide Kabinen) abhängigen Anteil KAZ.

Die Zuschläge wegen Betriebszustand und Rufbedienung werden je pro Einfachkabine separat berechnet. Als Zunahme der äusseren Bedienungskosten wegen Rufbedienung durch die Doppelkabine wird die grössere Zunahme der beiden Einfachkabinen genommen. Gleich so wird die Zunahme definiert als die grösste Zunahme aus den beiden für einzelne Kabinen. In beiden Fällen werden also die "worst case" Werte genommen. Die gesamten äusseren Bedienungskosten für eine Doppelkabinenposition ergeben sich dadurch, dass zu den äusseren Bedienungskosten der vorherigen Doppelkabinenposition die drei obengenannten Anteile addiert werden. Die gesamten Bedienungskosten bestehen aus den inneren und äusseren Bedienungskosten. Die Gesamtkosten K_g(α) für eine Aufzugsposition (α, α+1) werden im Platz (α+1) des Gesamtkostenspeichers RAM 9 abgelegt, der Abtaster R1 auf das nächste Stockwerk geschaltet und die Berechnung sinngemäss wiederholt. Hinsichtlich der Bedienung eines Stockwerkrufes in einer das Stockwerk in welcher sich der Aufzug befindet bezeichnenden Abtasterstellung (α) werden für die Doppelkabine 4 Gesamt-Bedienungskosten K_g(α) definiert:

${\text{K}}_{\text{g}}{\text{(α) = G · K}}_{\text{Ig}}{\text{(α) + K}}_{\text{Ag}}\text{(α) (I)}$

wobei bedeuten:

K_g(α) :

die Gesamt-Bedienungskosten einer Doppelkabine für die Abtasterstellung α

K_Ig(α) :

die inneren Gesamt-Bedienungskosten einer Doppelkabine für die Abtasterstellung α

K_Ag(α) :

die äusseren Gesamt-Bedienungskosten einer Doppelkabine für die Abtasterstellung α

G :

ein Gewichtungsfaktor.

In the calculation process, the internal service costs and the increase in the external service costs for both single cabins 5, 6 are determined separately: The total internal costs for a double cabin position (α, α + 1) are calculated by adding the separately calculated internal service costs of the two single cabins on floors α and α + 1 determined. As with group control for individual cabins, the external operating costs consist of three parts;

• a portion depending on the floor distance travel time m · _m
• a proportion of KAE depending on the operating state of the two single cabins
• a share of KAZ that is dependent on call control on mezzanine floors (both cabins).

The surcharges for operating status and call operation are calculated separately for each single cabin. The greater increase in the two single cabins is taken as an increase in the external operating costs due to call control by the double cabin. In the same way, the increase is defined as the largest increase from the two for individual cabins. In both cases, the "worst case" values are used. The total external operating costs for a double cabin position result from the fact that the three parts mentioned above are added to the external operating costs of the previous double cabin position. The total operating costs consist of the inner and outer operating costs. The total costs K _g (α) for an elevator position (α, α + 1) are stored in the space (α + 1) of the total cost memory RAM 9, the scanner R1 is switched to the next floor and the calculation is analogous repeated. With regard to the operation of a floor call in a scanning position (α) which designates the floor in which the elevator is located, 4 total operating costs K _g (α) are defined for the double cabin:

${\text{K}}_{\text{G}}{\text{(α) = GK}}_{\text{Ig}}{\text{(α) + K}}_{\text{Ag}}\text{(α) (I)}$

where mean:

K _g (α):

the total operating costs of a double cabin for the scanning position α

K _Ig (α):

the total internal operating costs of a double cabin for the scanning position α

K _Ag (α):

the total external operating costs of a double cabin for the scanning position α

G:

a weighting factor.

wobei gilt:

K_gs(α) :

die standardisierten Gesamt-Bedienungskosten einer Doppelkabine für die Abtasterstellung α

G :

ein Gewichtungsfaktor

S :

ein Statusfaktor für Koinzidenz von Abtasterstellung und Kabinenruf mit S = 0 bei Koinzidenz und S = 1 bei fehlender Koinzidenz

K_Iv(α) :

die inneren Teil-Bedienungskosten der in Fahrtrichtung vorderen Einfachkabine für die Abtasterstellung α

K_Ih(α±1) :

die inneren Teil-Bedienungskosten der in Fahrtrichtung hinteren Einfachkabine in der Position (α+1) bzw. (α-1)

K_Av(α) :

die äusseren Teil-Bedienungskosten der in Fahrtrichtung vorderen Einfachkabine für die Abtasterstellung α

K_Ah(α±1) :

die äusseren Teil-Bedienungskosten der in Fahrtrichtung hinteren Einfachkabine in der Position (α+1) bzw. (α-1)

K_Iv(α)+K_Ih(α±1) =K_Ig(α) :innere Gesamt-Bedienungskosten
K_Av(α)+K_Ah(α±1) =K_Ag(α) :äussere Gesamt-Bedienungskosten
Für die Berechnung der standardisierten Gesamt-Bedienungskosten K_gs(α) mittels eines Kostenberechnungsalgorithmus KBA gilt folgende Berechnungsformel:

${\text{K}}_{\text{gs}}{\text{(α)=G·S·t}}_{\text{v}}{\text{·[[P}}_{\text{Mv}}{\text{+K}}_{\text{1v}}{\text{·R}}_{\text{Ev}}{\text{-k}}_{\text{2v}}{\text{·R}}_{\text{Cv}}{\text{]+[P}}_{\text{Mh}}{\text{+k}}_{\text{1h}}{\text{·R}}_{\text{Eh}}{\text{-k}}_{\text{2h}}{\text{·R}}_{\text{Ch}}{\text{]] + [m·t}}_{\text{m}}{\text{+ KAE + KAZ]·k}}_{\text{1g}}\text{ (III)}$

wobei gilt:

t_v :

die mittlere, die Innenkosten betreffende Verlustzeit, die sich bei einem Halt in der Abtasterstellung α ergibt

t_v' :

die mittlere, die Aussenkosten betreffende Verlustzeit, die sich bei einem Halt in der Abtasterstellung α ergibt

P_Mv;P_Mh :

die momentane Kabinenlast in der vorderen bzw. hinteren Kabine im Zeitpunkt der Berechnung

R_Ev;R_Eh :

die Anzahl zugeteilter Stockwerkrufe zwischen Selektor- und Abtasterstellung, für die vordere bzw. hintere Kabine

R_Cv;R_Ch :

die Anzahl Kabinenrufe zwischen Selektor-und Abtasterstellung, für die vordere bzw. hintere Kabine

k_1v;k_1h :

eine in Abhängigkeit von den Verkehrsverhältnissen ermittelte voraussichtliche Anzahl zusteigende Personen pro Stockwerkruf, für die vordere bzw. hintere Kabine

k_2v;k_2h :

eine in Abhängigkeit von den Verkehrsverhältnissen ermittelte voraussichtliche Anzahl aussteigende Personen pro Kabinenruf, für die vordere bzw. hintere Kabine

m :

die Anzahl Stockwerkdistanzen zwischen Selektor- und Abtasterstellung

t_m :

die mittlere Fahrzeit pro Stockwerkdistanz

m·t_m :

die mittlere, die Aussenkosten betreffende Verlustzeit, die sich aus dem Durchfahren der Stockwerkdistanzen zwischen Selektor-und Abtasterstellung ergibt

KAE :

die mittlere, die Aussenkosten betreffende Verlustzeit, die sich aus der Einfahrt in eine Abtasterstellung (α) ergibt

KAZ :

die mittlere, die Aussenkosten betreffende Verlustzeit, die sich aus den Zwischenhalten ergibt

[m·t_m + KAE + KAZ] :

die totale, die Aussenkosten betreffende Verlustzeit

k_1g = k_1v + k_1h :

die in Abhängigkeit von den Verkehrsverhältnissen ermittelte voraussichtliche Gesamtzahl pro Stockwerkruf zusteigende Personen in der vorderen und hinteren Kabine

[P_Mv + k_1v·R_Ev - k_2v·R_Cv] :

die Anzahl Fahrgäste, die bei einem Halt in Abtasterstellung (α) in der vorderen Kabine warten müssen

[P_Mh + k_1h·R_Eh - k_2h·R_Ch] :

die Anzahl Fahrgäste, die bei einem Halt in Abtasterstellung (α) in der hinteren Kabine warten müssen.

Furthermore, certain standard operating positions are determined for the operation of a scanning position (α) by a double cabin 4 - depending on the direction of operation - by the position of the single cabins 5, 6, namely the operating position α, α + 1 for the downward operating direction, and the operating position α , α-1 for the upward operating direction and thereby standardized total operating _costs K _gs (α) defined as follows:

${\text{K}}_{\text{gs}}{\text{(α) = G · [S · [K}}_{\text{Iv}}{\text{(α) + K}}_{\text{You}}{\text{(α ± 1)]] + [K}}_{\text{Av}}{\text{(α) + K}}_{\text{Ah}}\text{(α ± 1)] (II)}$

where:

K _gs (α):

the standardized total operating costs of a double cabin for the scanning position α

G:

a weighting factor

S:

a status factor for the coincidence of scanning and cabin call with S = 0 for coincidence and S = 1 for missing coincidence

K _Iv (α):

the inner part operating costs of the front single cab in the direction of travel for the scanning position α

K _Ih (α ± 1):

the inner part operating costs of the single cab at the rear in the direction of travel in position (α + 1) or (α-1)

K _Av (α):

the outer part operating costs of the front single cab in the direction of travel for the scanning position α

K _Ah (α ± 1):

the outer part operating costs of the rear single cab in the direction of travel in the position (α + 1) or (α-1)

K _Iv (α) + K _Ih (α ± 1) = K _Ig (α): total internal service costs
K _Av (α) + K _Ah (α ± 1) = K _Ag (α): external total operating costs
The following calculation formula applies to the calculation of the standardized total service costs K _gs (α) using a cost calculation algorithm KBA:

${\text{K}}_{\text{gs}}{\text{(α) = G · S · t}}_{\text{v}}{\text{· [[P}}_{\text{Mv}}{\text{+ K}}_{\text{1v}}{\text{· R}}_{\text{Ev}}{\text{-k}}_{\text{2v}}{\text{· R}}_{\text{Cv}}{\text{] + [P}}_{\text{Mh}}{\text{+ k}}_{\text{1h}}{\text{· R}}_{\text{Eh}}{\text{-k}}_{\text{2h}}{\text{· R}}_{\text{Ch}}{\text{]] + [m · t}}_{\text{m}}{\text{+ KAE + KAZ] · k}}_{\text{1g}}\text{(III)}$

where:

t _v :

the average loss time relating to the internal costs, which results from a stop in the scanning position α

t _v ':

the average loss time relating to the external costs, which results from a stop in the scanning position α

P _Mv ; P _Mh :

the current cabin load in the front or rear cabin at the time of the calculation

R _Ev ; R _Eh :

the number of floor calls allocated between the selector and scanner position, for the front or rear cabin

R _Cv ; R _Ch :

the number of cabin calls between selector and scanner position, for the front or rear cabin

k _1v ; k _1h :

an anticipated number of people getting in per floor call, depending on the traffic conditions, for the front or rear cabin

k _2v ; k _2h :

an estimated number of people getting out per cabin call, depending on the traffic conditions, for the front or rear cabin

m:

the number of floor distances between Selector and scanner creation

t _m :

the average travel time per floor distance

m · _m :

the average loss time relating to the external costs, which results from driving through the floor distances between the selector and scanner positions

KAE:

the average loss time relating to the external costs, which results from the entry into a scanning position (α)

KAZ:

the average loss of time related to external costs, which results from the intermediate stops

[m · t _m + KAE + KAZ]:

the total loss time related to external costs

k _1g = k _1v + k _1h :

the estimated total number of people boarding per floor call in the front and rear cab depending on the traffic conditions

[P _Mv + k _1v · R _Ev - k _2v · R _Cv ]:

the number of passengers who have to wait in the front cabin when stopped in the scanning position (α)

[P _Mh + k _1h · R _Eh - k _2h · R _Ch ]:

the number of passengers who have to wait in the rear cabin when stopped in the scanning position (α).

und für den Betriebsstatus "Halt" aus dem grösseren der Türstatusfaktoren S_Tv;S_Th für die vordere bzw. die hintere Einfachkabine 4, 5 nach der Formel

${\text{KAE = max[S}}_{\text{Tv}}{\text{/S}}_{\text{Th}}{\text{]·t}}_{\text{v}}\text{' (V)}$

berechnet wird.The first surcharge KAE is determined from the operating states of the double cabin 4, from which the scanning position (α) is to be entered, the operating states "acceleration", "full speed" and "braking" KAE from the corresponding drive status factor S _A according to the formula

${\text{KAE = S}}_{\text{A}}{\text{· T}}_{\text{v}}\text{'(IV)}$

and for the operating status "Halt" from the larger of the door status factors S _Tv ; S _Th for the front or the rear single cabin 4, 5 according to the formula

${\text{KAE = max [p}}_{\text{TV}}{\text{/ S}}_{\text{Th}}{\text{] · T}}_{\text{v}}\text{'(V)}$

is calculated.

rekursiv berechnet wird, wobei KAZ_init gemäss Anspruch 4 aus den Antriebs-und Türstatusfaktoren der Doppelkabine 4 ermittelt wird, und für ΔKAZ, die grössere der für die vordere oder hintere Einfachkabine berechneten Verlustzeiten t_v' + k_1v + k_2v bzw. t_v' + k_1h + k_2h genommen wird.Furthermore, the second surcharge KAZ becomes the loss of time KAZ _init in the event of an intermediate stop in the selector position and the time loss ΔKAZ in the event of any intermediate stops between the selector and scanner position according to the formula

${\text{KAZ = KAZ}}_{\text{init}}\text{+ ΣΔKAZ (VI)}$

is calculated recursively, wherein KAZ _{init is determined} according to claim 4 from the drive and door status factors of the double cabin 4, and for ΔKAZ, the greater of the loss times t _v '+ k _1v + k _2v or t _v calculated for the front or rear single cabin '+ k _1h + k _{2h is} taken.

After the end of the cost calculation cycle KBZ (time II), the second scanners R2 simultaneously begin one round for all elevators a, b, c, hereinafter referred to as the KVZ cost comparison cycle, starting from the first floor (time III). The cost comparison cycles KVZ start, for example, five to ten times a second. At each scanning position, the modified total service _costs K _gm contained in the total cost _memories RAM 10 of the elevators a, b, c are _{fed to} the comparison _device 14 and compared with one another, wherein in the allocation _memory RAM 12 of the elevator a, b, c with the lowest modified total -Operating costs K _gm an allocation _{instruction can be stored} in the form of a logical "1", which designates the floor to which the elevator a, b, c in question is optimally assigned in terms of time. For example, based on the comparison in the scanning position 9, a reassignment may take place by deleting an assignment instruction for elevator b and enrolling one for elevator a (FIG. 1). As a result of the reallocation in scanner position 9, a new cost calculation cycle KBZ is started for elevators a and b and the cost comparison cycle KVZ is interrupted, since the former has priority. Since, according to the example for floor E9, a floor call is stored and the elevator a is reserved for its operation, in the scanner position 9 of the scanner R1 during the cost calculation cycle KBZ, the deck allocation algorithm DZA is noted in the single cabin / call allocation memory RAM 11 as a result of the clarifications, which elevator car is the cheaper one for the floor call service.

With regard to the deck allocation algorithm DZA, it can be said that it is based on hierarchically ordered chains of criteria, the criteria of highest priority being combined in a group "compulsory allocation" and the criteria of lower priority in a group "free allocation". The deck assignments for the "Forced Allocation" group are mandatory, based on the following descending priority: coincidence "cabin call floor call"; Not operating a scanner position (α) with single cab 5, 6 at full load; Not operating a scanner position (α) with single cab 5, 6 in the "non-operating" operating mode. In the absence of a "compulsory allocation" the following criteria a "free allocation" applied: simultaneous operation of two neighboring floors (congruent operation); Load balancing under single cabins 5, 6 with or without adjustable imbalance; no overlap of "own" stop positions, ie operation of four neighboring floors by just two colds of the same elevator; no overlap of "foreign" stopping positions, ie operation of four adjacent floors by only stopping two elevators of the same elevator group; Preference for the front or rear single cabin 5, 6. The criteria chains on which the deck allocation algorithm DZA is based can be changed by combining the individual criteria and / or changing their priorities, for example by parameter control.

The cost comparison is then continued from scanner position 10 in order to be interrupted again at scanner position 9 (downward) by the occurrence of an event in elevator c, for example a change in the selector position (time IV). After the resulting cost calculation cycle KBZ has ended for elevator c (time VII), the cost comparison cycle KVZ continues and its termination with scanning position 2 (downward). A further cost calculation cycle KBZ for elevator a, triggered for example by a car call, runs between times VIII and IX, whereupon the next cost comparison cycle KVZ is started at time X. The entire cost comparison cycle can (selectable) also run uninterrupted (regardless of incoming events).

Claims (10)

1. Method for the group control of lifts with double cages, in which (method) the operating costs, which are defined as the time loss of all passengers involved in the serving of a call, serve as decision criterion for ascertaining the lift (a, b, c), which is optimally usable in a scanner setting (α) designating the storey, at which the lift is situated, for serving a storey call at a storey (E) and in which these operating costs are computed and stored - irrespective of whether a storey call is present or not - for each scanner setting (α) and separately for each lift (a, b, c) within the frame of a costs computing cycle (KBZ) and compared subsequently for all lifts together in the frame of a costs comparing cycle (KVZ), wherein the lift (a, b, c) with the least operating costs of the scanner setting (α) concerned is allocated by means of a control equipment as favourite for the serving of a possibly applicable storey call and the association of a certain single cage (5, 6) of the corresponding double cage (4) with the scanner setting (α ) to be served is also provided in that case, characterised by the following steps:

   a) for the characterisation of the availability of a double cage (4) with a view to the serving of a storey call in a scanner setting (α) designating the storey, at which the lift is situated, the following total operating costs K_g(α) are defined for the double cage (4):
   
   ${\text{K}}_{\text{g}}{\text{(α) = G.K}}_{\text{Ig}}{\text{(α) + K}}_{\text{Ag}}\text{(α), (I),}$

   

   
   
   wherein

   K_g(α)   signifies the total operating costs of a double cage for the scanner setting (α),

   K_Ig(α)   the internal total operating costs of a double cage for the scanner setting (α)

   K_Ag(α)   the external total operating costs of a double cage for the scanner setting (α) and

   G   signifies a weighting factor.

   b) For the serving of a scanner setting (α) by a double cage (4), certain standard operating positions determined by the position of the single cages (5, 6) are fixed according to serving direction, namely the operating position α, α+1 for the downward serving direction as well as the operating position α, α-1 for the upward serving direction and standardised total operating costs K_gs(α) are in that case defined as following:
   
   ${\text{K}}_{\text{gs}}{\text{(α)=G.[S.[K}}_{\text{Iv}}{\text{(α)+K}}_{\text{Ih}}{\text{(α±1)]]+[K}}_{\text{Av}}{\text{(α)=K}}_{\text{Ah}}\text{(α±1)], (II)}$

   

   
   
   wherein

   K_gs(α)   is the standardised total operating costs of a double cage for the scanner setting (α),

   G   is a weighting factor,

   S   is a status factor for co-incidence of scanner setting and cage call with S=0 for co-incidence and S=1 for absent co-incidence,

   K_Iv(α)   is the inner partial operating costs of the single cage leading in direction of travel for the scanner setting (α)

   K_Ih(α±1)   is the inner partial operating costs of the single cage trailing in direction of travel in the position (α+1) and (α-1) respectively,

   K_Av(α)   is the outer partial operating costs of the single cage leading in direction of travel for the scanner setting (α)

   K_Ah(α±1)   is the outer partial operating costs of the single cage trailing in direction of travel in the position (α+1) and (α-1) respectively,

   K_Iv(α) + K_Ih (α±1) = K_Ig(α) is the inner total operating costs and
   K_Av(α) + K_Ah (α±1) = K_Ag(α)is the outer total operating costs.

   c) For each double cage (4), the standardised total operating costs K_gs(α) are computed in the frame of its costs computing cycle (KBZ) in each scanner setting (α) according to step b by means of a costs computing algorithm (KBA) and subsequently stored in a first total costs storage device (RAM9), while the inner operating costs K_Iv(α) and K_Ih(α±1) as well as the outer operating costs K_Av(α) and K_Ah(α±1) are computed separately and also stored separately in respectively corresponding partial costs storage devices (RAM7 and RAM8).

   d) For each double cage (4), the single cage (5, 6) optimal for the serving is determined in the frame of its costs computing cycle (KBZ) in each scanner setting (α) and marked in a single cage call-association storage device (RAM11), wherein - immediately after the costs computing algorithm (KBA) and by means of a covering association algorithm (DZA) - that operating position (α, α+1) or (α, α-1) is ascertained, which is optimal for the corresponding scanner setting (α) in the sense of a hierarchically ordered criterion chain (KK).

   e) For each double cage (4), the total operating costs K_g(α), which are denoted as modified total operating costs K_gm(α), are ascertained in the frame of its costs computing cycle (KBZ) in each scanner setting (α) for the optimum operating positions (α, α+1) or (α, α-1) according to step d and stored in a second total costs storage device (RAM10), wherein - immediately after the covering association algorithm (DZA) and by means of a costs modification algorithm (KMA) - the standardised total operating costs K_gs(α) are taken over or modified according to whether or not the covering association according to step d agrees with the standardised operating position according to step b.

   f) The modified total operating costs K_gm(α), of all lifts (a, b, c) are compared for each scanner position (α) in a comparing equipment (14) in the frame of the costs comparison cycle (KVZ) comprehending all lifts of the lift group and the double cage (4) with the least modified total operating costs K_gm(α) is marked in a double cage call allocation storage device (RAM12) as "favourite" for the serving of a possibly applicable storey call in scanner setting (α) and in a given case allocated at once.
2. Method according to claim 1, characterised thereby, that the costs computing algorithm (KBA) for the computation of the standardised total operating costs K_gs(α) is based on the following computation formula:
   
   ${\text{K}}_{\text{gs}}{\text{(α)=G.S.t}}_{\text{v}}{\text{.[[P}}_{\text{Mv}}{\text{+K}}_{\text{1v}}{\text{.R}}_{\text{Ev}}{\text{-k}}_{\text{2v}}{\text{.R}}_{\text{Cv}}{\text{]+[P}}_{\text{Mh}}{\text{+k}}_{\text{1h}}{\text{.R}}_{\text{Eh}}{\text{-k}}_{\text{2h}}{\text{.R}}_{\text{Ch}}{\text{]] +[m.t}}_{\text{m}}{\text{+ KAE + KAZ].k}}_{\text{1g}}\text{ (III)}$

   

   
   
   wherein

   t_v   is the mean time loss which concerns the inner costs and results for a stop in the scanner setting (α),

   t_v'   is the mean time loss which concerns the outer costs and results for a stop in the scanner setting (α),

   P_Mv; P_Mh   are the momentary cage load respectively in the leading and the trailing cage at the instant of the computation,

   R_Ev; R_Eh   are the number of allocated storey calls between the selector setting and the scanner setting respectively for the leading and the trailing cage,

   R_Cv; R_Ch   are the number of cage calls between the selector setting and the scanner setting respectively for the leading and the trailing cage,

   k_1v; K_1h   are each a foreseeable number, which is ascertained in dependence on the traffic conditions, of boarding persons per storey call respectively for the leading and the trailing cage,

   k_2v; k_2h   are each a foreseeable number, which is ascertained in dependence on the traffic conditions, of alighting persons per cage call respectively for the leading and the trailing cage,

   m   is the number of storey distances between the selector setting and the scanner setting,

   t_m   is the mean travelling time per storey distance,

   m.t_m   is the mean time loss which concerns the outer costs and results from travelling through the storey distances between the selector setting and the scanner setting,

   KAE   is the mean time loss which concerns the outer costs and results from the travelling into a scanner setting ( ),

   KAZ   is the mean time loss which concerns the outer costs and results from the intermediate stops,

   [m.t_m + KAE + KAZ]   is the total time loss concerning the outer costs,

   k_1g = k_1v + k_1h   is a foreseeable total number, which is ascertained in dependence on the traffic conditions, of boarding persons per storey call in the leading and in the trailing cage,

   Mv + k_1v.R_Ev - k_2v.R_Cv]   is the number of passengers who have to wait in the leading cage on a stop in the scanner setting (α) and

   [P_Mh + k_1h.R_Eh - k_2h.R_Ch]   is the number of passengers who have to wait in the trailing cage on a stop in the scanner setting (α).
3. Method according to claim 2, characterised thereby, that the total time loss determining the total outer costs (K_Ag) is equal to the time loss (m.t_m) from travelling through the storey distances between the selector setting and the scanner setting, respectively, increased by a first supplement (KAE) for the time loss on travelling into the scanner setting (α) and a second supplement (KAZ) for the time loss from one or more intermediate stops.
4. Method according to claim 3, characterised thereby, that the first supplement (KAE) is determined from the operational states of the cage (4), out of which the scanner setting (α) is to be travelled into, wherein KAE is computed from the corresponding drive status factor (S_A) according to the formula
   
   ${\text{KAE = S}}_{\text{A}}{\text{.t}}_{\text{V}}\text{' (IV)}$

   

   
   
   for the operational states of "acceleration", "full speed", and "braking" and from the greater of the door status factors S_Tv and S_Th respectively for the leading and the trailing single cage (4, 5) according to the formula
   
   ${\text{KAE = max [S}}_{\text{Tv}}{\text{/S}}_{\text{Th}}{\text{].t}}_{\text{v}}\text{' (V)}$

   

   
   
   for the operational status "stop".
5. Method according to claim 3, characterised thereby, that the second supplement (KAZ) is computed recursively from the time loss (KAZ_init) in the case of a possibly applicable intermediate stop in the selector setting and from the time losses (ΔKAZ) in the case of possibly applicable intermediate stops between the selector setting and the scanner setting according to the formula
   
   ${\text{KAZ = KAZ}}_{\text{init}}\text{+ ΣΔKAZ, (VI)}$

   

   
   
   wherein KAZ_init is determined according to claim 4 from the drive and door status factors of the double cage (4) and the greater of the time losses t_v' + k_1v + k_2v and t_v' + k_1h + k_2h computed respectively for the leading and the trailing single cage is taken for ΔKAZ.
6. Method according to claim 1, characterised thereby, that the criteria chains forming the basis of the covering association algorithm (DZA) are ordered hierarchically, wherein the criteria of highest priority are comprehended in a group "constrained allocation" and the criteria of lower priority are comprehended in a group "free allocation".
7. Method according to claim 6, characterised thereby, that the corresponding covering associations are constrained for the group "constrained allocation" according to claim 6 and the following criteria are in that case provided in decreasing priority:

   - Co-incidence of "cage call - storey call",

   - not serving a scanner setting (α) by a fully loaded single cage (5, 6) and

   - not serving a scanner setting (α) by a single cage (5, 6) in the mode of operation "out of service".
8. Method according to claim 6, characterised thereby, that the following criteria of a "free allocation" are applied in the absence of a "constrained allocation" according to claim 7:

   - simultaneous service of two adjacent storeys (congruent service),

   - load equalisation among the single cages (5, 6) with or without settable imbalance,

   - no overlapping of "own" stopping positions, i.e. service of four adjacent storeys by only two stops of the same lift,

   - no overlapping of "alien" stopping positions, i.e. service of four adjacent storeys by only one stop each of two lifts of the same lift group and

   - preferment of the leading or the trailing single cage (5, 6).
9. Method according to claim 6, characterised thereby, that for variation of the criteria chains forming the basis of the covering association algorithm (DZA), the individual criteria are combined and/or altered in their priorities, for example by parameter control.
10. Equipment for the performance of the method according to claim 1 and consisting of a group control for lifts with double cages which are each formed of two single cages which are arranged in a common cage frame and serve two adjacent storeys at a time, with cage call storage devices and load-measuring equipments associated with the cages, with storey call storage devices, with selectors which are associated with each lift of the group and each time indicate the storey of a possible lift position (stop) and with scanning equipments (R₁, R₂) displaying at least one setting for each storey as well as with a microcomputer system (7) and a computing equipment (CPU), which for each setting of a first scanner (R1) of the scanning equipment (R1, R2) determines operating costs (K) corresponding to the waiting times of all passengers involved, wherein two partial costs storage devices (RAM7, RAM8), which respectively store the inner and the outer partial costs (K_I, K_A), are each provided with two storage places (v, h) per scanner setting (α) for the partial costs K_Iv, K_Ih, K_Av and K_Ah of each single cage (5, 6), characterised by

    - a first total costs storage device (RAM9), in which the standardised total costs K_gs(α), which are determined from the inner operating costs K_Iv(α) and K_Ih(α±1) and the outer operating costs K_Av(α) and K_Ah(α±1) , for each scanner setting (α) are stored,

    - a single cage call-association storage device (RAM11) in which that single cage (5, 6) is designated, which is optimally associated with a scanner setting (α) by reason of the hierarchically ordered criteria chains forming the basis of the covering association algorithm (DZA), wherein the criteria of highest priority are comprehended in a group "constrained allocation" and the criteria of lower priority are comprehended in a group "free allocation",

    - a second total costs storage device (RAM10), in which the modified total operating costs K_gm(α), which are determined through modification of the standardised total costs K_gs(α) by reason of the single cage call-association, are stored for each scanner setting (α),

    - a comparing equipment (14), which is connected by a bus (B) with the total costs storage devices (RAM10) for the modified total operating costs K_gm(α) and with the double cage call-allocation storage devices (RAM12) of all lifts, wherein the comparison of the modified total operating costs K_gm(α) takes place for each scanner setting (α) during one rotation of the second scanner (R2),

    - a double cage call-allocation storage device (RAM12), into which an allocation instruction is enterable for the lift (a, b, c), which in respect of a scanner setting (α) displays the least modified total operating costs K_gm(α), and

    - a comparing circuit (VS), which is connected with the operational state storage devices (RAM5, RAM6) of the single cages (5, 6) wherein the greater of the door status factors S_Tv and S_Th respectively for the leading and the trailing single cage (5, 6) is selectable for the computation of the first time loss supplement (KAE) dependent on the operational state of both the single cages and the greater of the time losses t_v' + k_1v + k_2v and t_v' + k_1h + k_2h respectively for the leading and the trailing single cage (5, 6) is selectable for the computation of the second time loss supplement (KAZ) dependent on call conditions at intermediate storeys (both cages).

Images