Patent Application
20110120813
Elevator systems traditionally facilitate passenger requests made by activating a hall call fixture. For example, a passenger at a particular floor can press an up or down button to indicate a desire to be carried to a different level within a building. An elevator controller recognizes the hall call placed in such a manner and assigns an elevator car to arrive at the corresponding landing to pick up the passenger. Upon entering the elevator car, the passenger uses a car operating panel to provide an indication of the floor to which the passenger desires to be carried.
It is also known to control an elevator system based upon destination entry requests from passengers. A difference between a destination entry request and a hall call is that the passenger provides an indication of their desired destination prior to entering the elevator car. There are various known destination entry systems and associated control techniques.
In some cases it is desirable to modernize or upgrade an existing elevator system that operates based upon passenger requests made at hall call fixtures so that the elevator system can operate based upon destination entry requests. To modernize or update such an elevator system, destination entry devices and appropriate controllers must be installed at appropriate locations within a building. It is desirable to minimize the amount of inconvenience to elevator passengers and building owners during a modernization process. To accomplish that goal, it is necessary to have a strategy for handling different types of passenger requests for service in the event that hall call fixtures and destination entry devices are both operational in association with the same elevator system.
An exemplary method is useful for handling passenger requests during an elevator system modernization that includes modernizing elevator cars over time. The modernized elevator cars are capable of servicing destination requests placed outside of an elevator car. Such destination requests include an indication of a desired destination. The exemplary method includes assigning an elevator car to respond to a new pending destination request according to a selected criterion for selecting between a modernized elevator car and an elevator car that has not yet been modernized. The method includes automatically updating the selected criterion responsive to a change in a number of modernized elevator cars.
An exemplary elevator system includes a plurality of elevator cars. At least one of the elevator cars has not yet been modernized. At least one of the elevator cars is modernized and is capable of servicing a destination request placed outside of the elevator cars. The destination request provides an indication of a desired destination. The system includes a controller that is configured to assign one of the elevator cars to respond to a new pending destination request according to a selected criterion for selecting between a modernized elevator car and an elevator car that has not yet been modernized. The controller is configured to automatically update the selected criterion responsive to a change in a number of modernized elevator cars.
In one example, the selected criterion comprises a percentage of pending requests assigned to modernized elevator cars.
The various features and advantages of the disclosed examples will become apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description. The drawings that accompany the detailed description can be briefly described as follows.
The example elevator system 20 is currently undergoing a modernization process. The elevator system had been originally designed to operate responsive to hall call requests from passengers that are made by activating a hall call fixture. For example, pressing an up or down button on a particular building level provides an indication that a passenger desires to be carried from that building level and provides an indication of the intended direction of travel. Upon entering an elevator car, the passenger makes a selection on the car operating panel to indicate the desired destination.
The modernization process is for updating the elevator system 20 to make it capable of responding to destination entry requests that provide an indication of a passenger's desired destination. Destination entry requests are made outside of an elevator car. The passenger need not use a car operating panel to provide an indication of the desired destination floor as was required in a traditional elevator system that utilized hall call devices to initiate a passenger request for service.
In the example of
In the example of
The example of
Providing passengers the most efficient elevator service is desirable during a modernization process. In this example, the dispatch controller 46 is configured to make an assignment of a destination request in a manner that facilitates a desired efficiency of passenger service.
For example, the elevator car 28 becomes modernized at a time subsequent to the modernization of the cars 30 and 32. The dispatch controller 46 in this example uses a different criterion or a different value of a criterion for selecting between assigning a new pending destination request to either a modernized elevator car or one of the elevator cars that has not yet been modernized after the car 28 is fully modernized. By automatically updating the selected criterion, this example provides the ability to adjust car assignments and how they are balanced between modernized elevator cars and those that have not yet been modernized. With the automatic updating feature of this example, an installer handling the modernization does not need to manually update any parameters utilized by the dispatch controller 46 as more of the elevator cars are modernized.
This example facilitates continuously achieving a desired level of passenger service efficiency even though the modernized status of different elevator cars of the system changes over time. As can be appreciated by those skilled in the art, modernizing an elevator system will often include modernizing the system on a car-by-car basis instead of modernizing the entire system all at once. When the modernization occurs over time with some cars being modernized and functional while others are not yet modernized but still functional, the disclosed example facilitates handling passenger requests in an efficient manner.
The example of
In one example, the selected criterion used by the dispatch controller 46 for choosing between a modernized elevator car or one that has not yet been modernized is a percentage of pending requests assigned to modernized elevator cars. In one example, as the percentage of modernized elevator cars increases, the desired or acceptable percentage of pending requests assigned to modernized elevator cars also increases. By automatically updating the percentage to assign to modernized cars based upon a current number of modernized cars, this example allows for adapting how car assignments are made responsive to changes in the modernization status of the overall elevator system. For example, it may be desirable to increase the percentage of calls assigned to modernized elevator cars as the modernization progresses.
In one example, the dispatch controller 46 utilizes criteria that includes determining whether the cross dispatcher 54 is eligible to receive a new pending passenger request for service. In one example, the cross dispatcher 54 is eligible for such a request if there is at least one elevator car that has not yet been modernized, the cross dispatcher is operational, the source floor of the new pending request can be serviced by an elevator car that has not yet been modernized and the destination floor of the new pending request can be serviced by an elevator car that has not yet been modernized. If the cross dispatcher is not eligible, the dispatch controller 46 assigns the new pending destination request to the best available modernized elevator car. The manner in which the best available modernized car is selected in one example is according to a known dispatching algorithm used for handing destination entry requests.
In one example, the selected criterion used by the dispatch controller 46 includes one or more forced assignment conditions. In such an example, the dispatch controller 46 determines whether a forced assignment condition exists and, if so, responsively selects between a modernized elevator car or one that has not yet been modernized responsive to the corresponding condition. For example, if there is no modernized elevator car currently available, the new pending destination request is forced to be assigned to an elevator car that is not yet modernized. Accordingly, the dispatch controller 46 communicates with the cross dispatcher 54 so that the group controller 52 receives an indication of a corresponding hall call request.
Another example forced assignment condition is that the current call was previously assigned to a modernized elevator car and not yet served by the modernized elevator car and that car is still available for hall call assignments. Under this condition, the dispatch controller 46 assigns the new pending request to the best available modernized elevator car which is likely to be the car with the same call pending.
Another example forced assignment condition includes having the call previously forwarded to the cross dispatcher 54 and the call has been pending for less than a selected amount of time (e.g., 120 seconds). Under this condition, the request is assigned to an elevator car that has not yet been modernized by communicating the request to the cross dispatcher 54.
Another example forced assignment condition is when the best available modernized elevator car can reach the level at which the request was made within a selected amount of time. In one example, the selected amount of time is based upon the remaining response time for that elevator car. In another example, the selected amount of time is based upon the impact of assigning the call to this car on the other passengers assigned to the car. Under such circumstances, the call is assigned to the best available modernized elevator car.
If there are no forced assignment conditions in existence or the dispatch controller 46 does not utilize any forced assignment conditions as part of the selected criteria, one example includes attempting to keep a ratio of demand assigned to each car type approximately equal to the ratio of the car types. In one example, the percentage of requests assigned to modernized elevator cars (out of the total pending requests) corresponds as closely as possible to the percentage of currently operational modernized elevator cars (out of all elevator cars in the system).
One example includes determining the existing demand or the current total of pending requests. The dispatch controller 46 in one example determines a number of calls placed at a destination entry device 44 assigned to an elevator car that has not yet been modernized, a number of calls placed at a hall call fixture 50 assigned to an elevator car that has not yet been modernized and a number of calls placed at a destination entry device 44 assigned to a modernized elevator car. These three determined amounts provide an indication of the total number of pending requests (i.e., the total existing demand).
In some examples, the cross dispatcher 54 will not have information regarding the number of requests made at a hall call fixture 50. In one such example, the dispatch controller 46 determines the number of such requests by determining an estimate. One example includes determining a ratio of floors having hall call fixtures 50 to the number of floors having destination entry devices 44 and multiplying a current number of requests placed at destination entry devices 44 by that ratio.
Once the total pending request amount is determined, the dispatch controller 46 determines the percentage of total requests assigned to the modernized elevator cars. Given a new pending destination request, the dispatch controller 46 determines whether adding that request to those already assigned to modernized elevators will keep the percentage of the total pending requests assigned to the modernized elevator cars within a desired range (e.g., at or below) the current percentage of the elevator cars that are modernized.
In one example, if assigning the new pending request to a modernized car will make the percentage of requests assigned to modernized elevator cars exceed the percentage of modernized elevator cars, then the dispatch controller 46 forwards the request to the cross dispatcher 54 for assignment to an elevator car that has not yet been modernized.
One example includes weighting the assignment decision factors to bias the assignments toward assigning the new pending request to a modernized elevator car. Another example biases the assignments the other way, which is toward assigning the new requests to elevator cars that have not yet been modernized. The example technique of automatically changing the selected criterion allows for changing the weighting based on how many elevator cars are already modernized. For example, it may be desirable to favor assignments to modernized elevator cars only when the percentage of them reaches a chosen threshold. At the beginning of a modernization process, there may be only one modernized elevator car and the desired quality of passenger service may more likely be consistently achieved by favoring assignments to elevator cars that are not yet modernized.
In one example an additional percentage factor is added to the percentage of modernized elevator cars to make it effectively larger. This will allow for assigning a higher percentage of requests to modernized elevator cars in an example where the selected criterion comprises having the percentage of requests correspond to the percentage of modernized elevator cars. This example favors assignments to modernized elevator cars.
Another example includes adding an additional percentage factor to the current percentage assigned to modernized elevator cars. In this example, a new pending request is assigned to a modernized elevator car if the percentage of modernized elevator cars exceeds the sum of the current percentage assigned to modernized cars and the additional percentage. This example favors assignments to elevator cars that have not been modernized.
One example accounts for calls that may be placed from a hall call fixture 50, which are not processed by or handled by the dispatch controller 46. This example includes reserving an amount (such as a percentage) of the elevator cars that have not yet been modernized. The reserved amount keeps at least one such elevator car available to respond to a possible call placed at a hall call fixture 50 while other requests are currently pending. In one example, the dispatch controller adaptively determines the number of elevator cars to reserve by determining the number of floors having active hall call fixtures 50 at which there is no current demand for service divided by the total number of floors serviced by the elevator system 20 multiplied by the total number of pending requests divided by the total number of floors serviced by the elevator system.
When there are reserved elevator cars, the percentage of reserved calls (out of the total number of cars) is added to the percentage of modernized elevator cars. The decision whether to assign a new destination request to a modernized elevator car includes determining whether that total corresponds to the percentage assigned to modernized elevator cars. For example, if the percentage of modernized elevator cars plus the percentage of reserved cars is greater than the percentage of requests assigned to modernized elevator cars, then the new request will be assigned to a modernized elevator car.
One example includes incorporating a reserved car percentage and the additional percentage factor into the determination regarding which type of car will be assigned the new request. For example, if the percentage of modernized elevator cars plus the percentage of reserved cars plus the additional percentage is greater than the percentage of pending requests assigned to modernized elevator cars, then the new request will be assigned to a modernized elevator car. Alternatively, if the percentage of modernized elevator cars plus the percentage of reserved cars is greater than the percentage of pending requests assigned to modernized elevator cars plus the additional percentage, then the new request will be assigned to a modernized elevator car.
The preceding description is exemplary rather than limiting in nature. Variations and modifications to the disclosed examples may become apparent to those skilled in the art that do not necessarily depart from the essence of this invention. The scope of legal protection given to this invention can only be determined by studying the following claims.
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/US08/76371 | 9/15/2008 | WO | 00 | 1/25/2011 |
