JP2006514906A - Elevator dispatch with guaranteed time performance using real-time service allocation - Google Patents

Abstract

The registration of each hall call (20, 21) is recorded (27), and the remaining response time for all available cars to arrive at the up and down hall calls is determined. The response time and limit to which each car responds is compared and the table indicates whether the car can answer below the latency limit. The time limit can be adjusted upward or downward.

Description

  The present invention only applies if (a) there is a hall call in the direction of the car on one floor, or (b) there is no other car in the system that can answer the hall call within the registration time limit. Regarding elevator dispatch where the elevator stops on the floor.

  One successful elevator dispatch system reassigns hall calls to the car several times per second to account for any changes that have occurred in the system. Other elevator dispatch systems assign a hall call to the car only once so that elevators that are to answer the hall call are announced immediately at the landing. All systems are in some form, information on the length of time it takes for any given elevator to reach a hall call, such as the location of the called car and where it must stop Consider based on. These dispatch systems are special to deal with hall calls that have been waiting longer than a predetermined maximum time, preventing the car from starting up and avoiding the concentration of the car when the other car can service almost the same. It has a special function. Even though there are subtle differences in all the sensations used, there is still a long waiting time due to car concentration and calls.

  The purpose of the present invention is to maintain the flexibility of dispatching elevators to balance between hall call registration times and having adequate slack in the system while avoiding worst case situations. It relates to dispatch of elevators and dispatch of improved elevators.

  The present invention retains enough flexibility within the system to allocate worst-case behavior (i.e., emergency against hall calls) even if the car is assigned to answer hall calls in a way that makes system behavior somewhat worse at all times. Long waiting time).

  According to the present invention, the elevator car is not assigned to a call and only stops if the car has a car call for a given floor, or a hall call in the direction of that car within the call waiting time limit. Will stop on the floor only if there is no car to stop on that floor. The expected response time of the car for various calls is not used to determine anything about this car, but determines whether other cars can answer the call within the call latency limits Use only to do.

  The present invention fundamentally extends from the traditional hall call allocation method by not allocating hall calls to the car, but by stopping the car when the car arrives at a committable floor that can be committed for calls in the same direction. Leave.

  Further, according to the present invention, the call waiting time limit can be adjusted variously to shorten the period when the traffic volume is low and to increase the period when the traffic volume is high.

  Other objects, features and advantages of the present invention will become better apparent in the light of the following detailed description of exemplary embodiments, as illustrated in the accompanying drawings.

  Referring to FIG. 1, signal processor 11 is an example illustrating a group controller that can assign a car to a hall call response using aspects of the present invention. The processor 11 responds to a plurality of sensors 12, such as a car weight sensor, provided on an input / output (I / O) port 15 of the processor 11, and a data signal 13 such as car direction and door status. Similarly, another I / O port 18 has a plurality of hall call buttons 19 stored on various floors of the building, a plurality of car call button panels 20 stored in each car, typically each It is connected to a plurality of hall lanterns 21 placed on the floor platform. The processor 11 includes a data bus 24, an address bus 25, a central processing unit (CPU) 26, a random access memory (RAM) 27, and a read only memory (ROM) 28 for storing necessary factors of a program or routine for executing the present invention. including.

  Referring to FIG. 2, the routine 30 for recording the registration time of the hall call is entered via the entry point 31. In the first step 32, the direction indicating factor D is set to “UP”. In step 35, the floor indicator F is set to 1, and then in a test 36 it is determined whether there is a hall call in the direction D on the floor F. This is currently an UP call on floor 1. If there is no hall call, the result of test 36 is no and the process moves to step 37 where F is increased and the next floor is tested in turn. If there is an UP hall call on floor F, the result of test 36 is affirmative and the process moves to test 37 to determine if the registration time of the UP call on floor 1 is set to -1. In this embodiment, whenever the registration time is set equal to −1, ie when there are no calls registered or just registered, the registration time for this has not yet been recorded. If set to -1, this means that this particular hall call is the first pass through the routine of FIG. 2 being considered, so the result of test 37 is affirmative and step 38 is entered. Then, the registration time of the UP call on the floor F is recorded as the current clock time. On the other hand, if test 37 is negative, this means that the registration for this call has already been set up and should be left as it is. If the result of test 37 is negative, step 38 is bypassed. .

  Next, in test 39, it is determined whether or not the floor pointer points to the top floor. Since it does not point to the top floor at first, the test 39 results in NO, and the process proceeds to step 37 where F is increased and the next floor is tested in order. When all floors have been tested, the result of test 39 is affirmative and test 42 is entered to determine if the direction pointer is set to DOWN. Since it is not initially set to DOWN, the result of test 42 is negative and the process moves to step 43 and the direction pointer is adjusted to point to “DOWN”. Steps and tests 35-42 are then repeated on the next floor for all cars. When testing for UP and DOWN directions on all floors for all cars, test 42 is positive and other programming is returned via return point 44. If parallel processing is being used, the result of test 42 is positive and the program returns to step 32, thereby continuously recording the hall call time.

  Referring to FIG. 3, via point 48, a routine 47 is entered that records the time required for the car to reach the call, and the first test 49 sets the direction pointer to UP. In step 50, the floor pointer is set to 1. In test 53, it is determined whether or not there is a hall call in the direction D of the direction pointer on the floor F. If there is no hall call, the result of test 53 is no and the process moves to step 54 to determine whether the top floor has been reached. If the top floor has not been reached, the result of test 54 is no and the process moves to step 55 where the floor pointer is increased. Then test 53 is repeated. If there is a hall call on this floor, subroutine 56 determines the remaining response time to reach the call in direction D on floor F for all available cars. This may be determined by a properly trained neural network as described in US Pat. No. 5,672,853. Alternatively, other known remaining response time algorithms may be used in some cases.

  In step 57, X is set to the number of usable cars, and in step 58, the car pointer C is set to 1. Test 62 then determines that if car C answers, the total latency for a call in direction D on floor F is less than the latency limit LIM (D) in this direction. This is accomplished by adding the remaining time for car C to reach this hall call and the difference between the registration time and the current time. If the total waiting time is less than the limit, step 63 sets table entry T to 1 for this floor call and direction for car C. However, if the total waiting time exceeds the limit, the result of test 62 is negative and the process moves to step 64 where the table entry for this call and car is set to zero. Then, in step 65, the number X of cars that can be used for the purpose described later is decreased.

  Test 67 determines whether all cars have been tested for floor F and direction D calls. If the test has not yet been completed, the result of test 67 is negative and the process moves to step 68 where C is incremented and the total waiting time for the next car to reach the call is stored in the target computer, Compare with limits. When all cars have been tested for this call, the result of test 67 is affirmative and test 69 is entered to determine if X is equal to zero. If X is equal to zero, there should be no car that can reach the call within the time limit with the current time limit setting, and the time limit should be increased to equal the smallest value stored. Means that. This finds an acceptable match in the next iteration. The routine then returns to step 50 to repeat the entire process with new limits in this direction.

  On the other hand, if X is not equal to zero, at least one car is set to 1 in the table for a hall call in this direction on this floor. The result of test 69 is negative and moves to test 54 to determine if all floors have been tested for hall calls and response times have been determined. Since it is not the case at first, the result of test 54 is negative, and the routine proceeds to step 55 where the floor pointer is increased.

  When all floors have the determined latency for all UP direction calls, the result of test 54 is affirmative and moves to test 76 to determine if the direction pointer is set to DOWN. Since it is not set to DOWN at the beginning, the result of test 76 is negative, and the routine goes to step 77, where the direction pointer is set to DOWN. All steps and tests 50-54 are then repeated for the down call. Thereafter, the result of test 76 is positive and moves to point 78 and the program returns to another routine or to step 49 if parallel processing is being used.

  The heart of the present invention is shown in routine 81 of FIG. Routine 81 is entered via entry point 82 to control the car stop and answer the call. In the first step 83, the car counter is set to 1. Test 86 then determines whether there is a car call on the floor that car C can promise in direction D in which car C is moving. If there is a car call, test 86 results in a positive result and moves to step 87 to issue a stop command to car C. Next, in step 88, the call registration time on the floor where the car C can promise in the direction of the car C is set to -1. This is the value tested in test 37 of FIG. This factor is also tested in test 89. If the result of test 89 is positive, it means that there is no hall call on the floor that the car can promise, so the result of test 89 is positive and steps 87 and 88 are bypassed. Test 90 determines whether all cars are considered. Since all the cars are not considered at first, the result of the test 90 is negative, and the process goes to step 91 to increase the car pointer. Tests 89 and / or 86 are again considered for the next car. If the registration time for a call is set to something other than -1 in the direction of the car on the floor that the car can promise, it means that there is a call, so other cars can answer the call within the waiting time limit. You must decide whether you can or can't. This is an important feature of the present invention. If another car can answer the call within the waiting time limit, the car will not answer the call. Note that this is fundamentally different from the related technology dispatch concept.

  If the result of the test 89 is negative, the process moves to step 92 where the backup car pointer C 'is set equal to the car pointer C. Next, in step 93, C 'is incremented to indicate a car other than the car currently considered for stopping. Test 94 determines whether the table entry for car C 'is equal to 1 in the direction of car C on the floor that car C can promise. If equal to 1, it means that another car C 'can answer the call within the time limit in the direction of C' on C's promised floor, so that car C does not answer the call according to the concept of the present invention. become. Therefore, the result of the test 94 is affirmative, and the stop command in step 87 is bypassed and the process moves to the test 90 to check whether or not all the cars have been tested. On the other hand, if the table entry for car C 'is zero, the result of test 94 is no, the process goes to step 95 to increment C', and test 96 determines whether to advance C 'back to C or not. To do. Thus, in this process, all cars except C are only tested in test 94.

  If all the cars are tested to see if they can answer the call and the positive result of test 94 prevents car C from answering the call without diverting the routine, The result is affirmative, the process proceeds to step 87, a stop command is issued to the car C, and in step 88, the registration time for the call is set to -1 again with the floor and direction that the car C can promise.

  For all cars, if they decide whether to stop or not, the result of test 90 is affirmative and moves to point 97 and returns to some other part of programming via point 97, or This routine can be returned to step 83 and the entire process can be repeated once more. The routine of FIG. 4 must be performed at least once during each period in which the car passes through the floor at maximum speed.

  As described above with respect to FIG. 3, if there is no basket that can answer the call within the waiting time limit, this means that the waiting time limit must be increased (generally during early morning rush hours) ). However, the lowering of the limit is performed by the routine shown in FIG. The process moves to this routine via the entry point 98. In the first step 99, the direction pointer is set to UP. Then, in step 100, a counter Y that determines the number of calls that have a call response time within the time limit is determined to be zero. In step 101, a counter Z is set to determine the total number of call response times. In step 102, the floor pointer is set to 1, and in test 103, it is determined whether there is a hall call in the floor and direction indicated by the pointer. If there is no hall call, the result of test 103 is no and the process moves to step 104 where the floor pointer is incremented and test 103 is repeated. Finally, if the result of test 103 is affirmative, the routine proceeds to step 105, where the car pointer C is set to 1, and then in test 109, the remaining response time for the car C to reach the floor F in direction D and the predetermined increase. Determine if is less than the current limit. If it is less than the current limit, step 110 increments the Y counter, then step 111 increments the Z counter. On the other hand, if the remaining response time for the subject call is not within the limit increment, the result of test 109 is no, and the process proceeds directly to step 111 and the Z counter is incremented. The purpose of this is shown in test 115 near the bottom of FIG. If the ratio of Y and Z is greater than a predetermined settable number W, the limit is reduced at step 116. If not, step 116 is bypassed.

  After incrementing the Z counter and possibly also the Y counter, test 119 determines if all cars have a response time compared to the time limit for this call. . If not, step 120 increments the car pointer and repeats test 109 for the next car. Once all cars have been tested for response time for the particular call in question, the result of test 119 is positive and moves to test 121 where all calls in this direction (initially UP) are compared against the limit. Determine if you had a response time. If not, step 104 increments the floor pointer and steps and tests 103-121 are repeated in turn for the next floor.

  Once all floors have been tested in this direction, test 124 determines whether the direction pointer is set to DOWN. If not set to DOWN, step 125 sets the direction pointer to DOWN and all steps and tests 100-124 are repeated again for all floors and all cars. Finally, all unanswered calls are tested to see if all car response times are greater than a predetermined increment that is less than the current time limit. If the car ratio is high enough, the result of test 115 is affirmative and the process moves to step 116 to reduce the limit. If the ratio is not high, the result of test 115 is negative, bypassing step 116 and moving to point 126. Here, the routine returns to step 99 or moves to another part of the program. This depends on whether or not parallel processing is used.

  The limit adjustment described above with respect to FIG. 3 (step 73) and FIG. 5 (step 116) can be accomplished in a variety of other ways. An example is shown in routine 129 shown in FIG. Within this, the routine enters via entry point 130 and first test 131 determines whether the number of calls registered per minute is greater than a predetermined constant P. If so, the limit can be adjusted upward in step 132 by setting the limit equal to a predetermined constant K1 multiplied by the traffic rate (calls per minute). If not, the result of test 131 is negative and step 132 bypasses. Similarly, test 136 determines whether the traffic rate per call per minute is less than a predetermined constant K2. If it is smaller, the limit can be lowered by setting it equal to the value obtained by multiplying the predetermined constant K2 and the traffic volume rate in step 137. If not, the result of test 136 is negative and step 137 bypasses.

  In this way, the limit is low during periods of low traffic, so the time waiting for the car to respond is minimized and the available capacity of the elevator system can be fully utilized. On the other hand, when the traffic is very high, the limit is increased so that the system retains sufficient margins and does not cause excessive numbers of long waiting calls, concentration, and other conventional undesirable elevator system responses, and perturbations and moments. The real-time service allocation of the present invention allows all calls to be slightly delayed so that excessive traffic demands can be handled. Alternatively, a map of limits as a function of traffic rate may be set in a lookup table. When the limit adjustment test is complete, the process moves to point 138, where if parallel processing is used, the routine of FIG. 6 returns to test 131 or moves to other programming.

  Up to this point, the present invention has been described without mentioning whether to handle a normal up / down hall call or a destination indication hall call in a building that uses the invention. In the general case, the present invention will work with either system. However, the present invention is used in the destination call system and is determined in subroutine 56 of FIG. 3 (and in test 109 of FIG. 5 if used) for primary use in test 62 of FIG. It is highly preferred that the remaining response time be accurate. When the dispatch system calculates the remaining response time, it can consider the destination floor, i.e., where the car call will be placed when answering a hall call. Without destination directed hall calls, the remaining response time calculations include possible destination floor history indications for calls answered within the current time interval of the day using known artificial intelligence techniques, A predetermined average accuracy of the remaining response time may be provided. The system can then function to an effective extent by properly controlling this limit. When using a destination call, the call button is not the up / down call button 21 but a numeric keypad device or a panel much like the car call button panel 20 (FIG. 1).

  One aspect of the present invention is that if a car on a floor that can currently be promised cannot reach the call within the time limit, if there is a hall call on a floor that does not have a car that can reach the limit, the floor on which each car can promise. This means that the car can answer the call. In other words, a call can be answered even if part of the car is out of bounds due to a predetermined sway.

1 is a schematic diagram illustrating a conventional computer configuration for interacting with an elevator as an example of a system that can implement the present invention. FIG. 5 is a simple logic flow diagram illustrating an example process that can be used to implement the present invention, and shows a record of the registration time of a hall call. FIG. 3 is a simple logic flow diagram illustrating an example process that can be used to implement the present invention, and illustrates the creation of a table of expected waiting periods. FIG. 4 is a simple logic flow diagram illustrating an example process that can be used to implement the present invention, and illustrates elevator car stop control. FIG. 5 is a simple logic flow diagram illustrating an example process that can be used to implement the present invention, and lowering the latency limit. FIG. 6 is a simple logic flow diagram illustrating an example process that can be used to implement the present invention, and illustrates another adjustment of latency.

Claims (2)

A method for allocating car service in real time in response to a hall call, said method comprising:
Recording the time when each hall call (21) was registered (38);
Determining for each car that can answer the hall call in the elevator system, the expected remaining response time for each car to reach each call (56);
Determining the expected waiting time for each car to answer the call as a sum of the expected remaining response time for the car to reach the call and the amount of time this call has not been answered; ,
Including,
Providing a matrix table (62-65) with an entry for each car for each hall call that may occur in the system, said table being expected for each car to reach an unanswered call Indicating whether the waiting time is less than a predetermined waiting time limit (63);
Determining (94) for each car whether there are other cars that can reach the call on the floor that can be promised in that car direction;
As shown in the matrix table, if there is a car call in a particular car for that floor (86), or only if there is no other car that can reach the call within the waiting time limit, And (87) stopping the car on a floor that the car can promise.   The method of claim 1, wherein the waiting time limit is adjusted upwards (73, 132) when traffic is heavy and adjusted downward (116, 137) when traffic is light.

Images