Procedure for controlling an elevator group

Abstract: The invention relates to a procedure for controlling an elevator group consisting of several elevators and related call devices. A control system for controlling the elevators controls each elevator in a manner determined by the calls entered and the existing control instructions. According to the invention, when the control system has to decide between two or more control alternatives, a systematic decision analysis is performed by studying the effects resulting from each alternative decision, said effects being estimated by simulating by a Monte-Carlo type method the future behaviour of the elevator system in the case of each alternative decision. To carry out the simulation, realizations are generated at random for the unknown quantities associated with the current state of the elevator system and for new external future events, and a control decision is made on the basis of the results of the decision analysis.

Description: The present invention relates to a procedure for controlling an elevator bank consisting of several elevators and related call devices and a control system which controls each elevator in a manner determined by the calls entered and the existing control instructions. The purpose of the group control is to distribute the transport tasks among the elevators belonging to the same bank in an appropriate way. The aim is to operate the elevators of the bank in an optimal way to ensure that the service offered to the customers is as efficient as possible. An appropriate objective is minimization of the average waiting times of the customer (the time from the customer's arrival to the arrival of the elevator). Other criteria can also be used as a basis for the control. Among the variables relevant to group control are the number of calls, the times of the day and the target floors. The group control procedure of the present invention is based on a decision analysis which is performed each time an elevator arrives at a point where the system has to decide which alternative action (e.g. passing by or stopping at a given floor) to choose. The decision analysis involves studying the effects resulting from different alternative control actions by simulating the behaviour of the system as from the situation after the decision. In this way, the elevator control is optimized on the basis of the information available. This information includes the positions and motional states of the elevators as well as the calls pertaining to the elevators. Moreover, the prevailing type and amount of traffic, i.e. the expected amounts of traffic in different directions, can be deduced from weekly and daily traffic statistics. However, statistics cannot provide accurate information about individual arrival events during the actual period of time concerned by a decision. The control of the elevator in an elevator bank must be optimized to a degree as high as possible. In making a control decision, the procedure takes the effects resulting from the decision with respect to the selected optimization criterion into account, considering even probable future arrival events. To accomplish this, the invention is characterized in that, when the control system has to decide between two or more possible actions, a systematic decision analysis is performed in realtime by studying the effects resulting from each alternative decision, said effects being estimated by simulating the future behaviour of the elevator system in the case of each alternative decision using a Monte-Carlo type method, generating realizations at random for unknown quantities associated with the current state of the elevator system and for new external future events, and a control decision is made on the basis of the results of the decision analysis. In Monte-Carlo type simulation, unknown quantities relating to the decision situation are selected at random according to assumed distributions. When the system behaviour is imitated by Monte-Carlo simulation, at each branching point the realization alternative of each branching is selected at random. The other embodiments of the invention are characterized by the features presented in the dependent claims. The procedure of the invention produces optimal decisions for elevator group control in a systematic manner. The procedure is applicable in all traffic situations, enabling the same unique system to be used. Possible future changes, such as new calls and new customers, are taken into account when making a control decision. The system allows free selection as to the quantity or quantities to be considered in the optimization. The procedure of the invention can be easily applied to different elevator systems. The characteristics of each system, including the limitations imposed by the elevator cars, are truthfully considered in the operation of the system. In the following, the invention is described in detail by the aid of one of its embodiments by referring to the drawings, in which Figure 1 is a diagram representing the principle of an elevator group. Figure 2 illustrates the stages and alternatives of operation of an elevator at decision points. Figure 3 presents the stages of operation of an elevator according to the description used in the internal simulator. Figure 4 presents a diagram illustrating the control procedure of the invention. Figure 1 presents a diagram illustrating the principle of an elevator group comprising three elevators, which can be controlled by the procedure of the invention. Each elevator car 1 moves in its shaft 2, suspended on hoisting ropes 3 and driven by a geared or gearless hoisting motor 4. The motor is controlled by a motor regulation unit 5 in accordance with commands received from the elevator control unit 6. The control unit 6 of each elevator is further connected to a group control unit 7, which distributes the control commands to the elevator control units 6. A group control unit 7 may also be placed in conjunction with one or more elevator control units 6. Fitted inside the elevator cars 1 are car call buttons 8 and possible displays for the transmission of information to the passengers. Similarly, the landings are provided with landing call buttons 9 with displays. For the control of the elevator group, the call buttons 8 and 9 and the corresponding displays are connected by a communication bus to the elevator control units 6 to transmit the call data to the elevator control and further to the group control unit 7. Decision points In the control of an elevator, various points can be distinguished where the control system has to make a decision regarding the function to be carried out. In the following it is assumed that there are two decision points for an elevator: a point of dispatch, where the elevator is standing at a floor with doors closed and ready to depart, and a point of stopping, where the elevator is moving and arriving at the deceleration point of a floor. An elevator standing at a point of dispatch with doors closed can depart either in the upward or the downward direction. If the elevator remains standing, it can open its doors and give either an upward or a downward direction indication. The elevator may also remain standing with doors closed. An elevator in motion may decide to pass by a given floor or to stop at the floor and give a downward or upward direction indication. However, not all alternatives are allowed in all situations, because there are certain constraining conditions imposed by other factors. For instance, a moving elevator has to stop at the floors determined by the car calls and it must not pass by those floors. Stages of operation of an elevator At a decision point, the system makes a selection which initiates a new stage in the operation of the elevator. The diagram in figure 2 presents the operational stages as a model based on the decision situations described above. In this model, elevator operation is divided into seven stages. In the figure, the stages are represented by renctangles and the transitions from one stage to another by arrows. The transitions take place either upon controlled decisions or automatically. In the IDLE stage, the elevator stands at a landing with doors closed, without passengers. In this stage, the system can choose between three different decisions for the elevator. Upon the decision STAY the elevator will remain where it is, upon the decision MOVE the elevator starts moving and enters the stage MOVING, and upon the decision OPEN the elevator opens its doors and enters the stage OPENING, during which the doors are opening. An elevator which is running, i.e. in the MOVING stage, can pass a floor with the decision PASS, and with the decision STOP it can enter the STOPPING stage, in which the elevator is stopping while the doors remain closed. From the STOPPING stage the elevator automatically passes into the OPENING stage. In the OPENING stage the elevator is either stopping or has already stopped and the doors are opening. From the OPENING stage the elevator automatically passes into the OPEN stage, in which the doors are open. From the OPEN stage the elevator passes into the CLOSING stage, during which the doors are closing while the elevator remains stationary. From the CLOSING stage the elevator passes into the OPENING stage if a customer entering the elevator while the doors are closing causes them to reopen, and into the IDLE stage if the elevator is empty (number of customers n = 0) or into the CLOSED stage if any customers are present in the elevator (n > 0). In the CLOSED stage the elevator is stationary with doors closed and with customers in the car and passes into the MOVING stage when the elevator departs. Internal simulator of group control In the simulation model, two internal event points are distinguished: stopping point and loading point. Stopping point refers to the arrival of the elevator at the deceleration point of a floor. Loading point means a moment when one of the elevators is ready to receive a new customer. On the basis of the internal event points, elevator operation is divided into three stages as indicated by figure 3, by considering the next internal event point for the elevator. An elevator is in the IDLE stage if it has no next internal event point, in the MOVING stage if its next internal event point is a stopping point, and in the BUSY stage if its next internal event point is a loading point. For an elevator in the MOVING stage there must always be a target floor, which determines the next stopping point, and for an elevator in the BUSY stage there must be a service direction, which determines whether the elevator is serving customers travelling downwards or those travelling upwards. The internal event points are completely unambiguously defined on the basis of the system parameters without any random or accidental factors. The operational stage of an elevator can only be changed at an event point, and the new stage is determined on the basis of the system status and the so-called internal control used in the simulation. In figure 3, the following transitions between stages can be distinguished: 1. An IDLE elevator remains idle at least until the arrival of the next customer because no next internal event point has been defined for it. When a new customer generates a new call from a different floor and an idle elevator is sent to serve the call, the elevator enters the MOVING stage. In this case, the stopping point for the elevator will be the instant of arriving at the deceleration point of the floor corresponding to the new call, i.e. the target floor. If the new call is generated from the floor where the idle elevator is, the elevator opens its doors and enters into the BUSY stage. In this case, the next service point is defined as the opening instant of the doors and the service direction is the direction of the call. In all other cases, the elevator remains idle, waiting for a call. In the above cases, the decisions regarding departure of the elevator and opening of the doors are made by the internal control system of the simulator. 2. When a MOVING elevator arrives at a stopping point, the system decides either to stop, in which case the elevator enters the BUSY stage, or to pass by the floor, in which case the elevator remains in the MOVING stage. In the case of a stopping decision, the actions between the event points of the elevator, i.e. between the loading and stopping points, consist of stopping the elevator, opening the doors and unloading the car of the passengers going to the floor in question. In the case of a pass-by decision, a new target floor determining the next stopping point is defined for the elevator. If a new call to a floor between the elevator and its target floor appears, the internal control system of the simulator decides whether the target floor and the corresponding stopping point defined for the elevator shall be changed or not. In this case, the operational stage of the elevator remains unchanged. The stopping and pass-by decisions and the selections of target floor are made by the internal control system of the simulator. 3. When a BUSY elevator arrives at a loading point and there are passengers waiting in the queue of its service direction, the first passenger in the queue enters the elevator car and possibly gives a new car call. In this case, the elevator remains BUSY in the same service direction. The time required for the passengers to enter determines the interval between event points from the loading point to the next loading point. When there are no passengers waiting to enter, the elevator may go into any stage depending on the situation. If there are any passengers in the elevator, it will enter the MOVING stage. If the elevator is empty, the internal control system decides whether the elevator shall remain IDLE or enter the MOVING stage for parking or to serve landing calls, or whether it shall be BUSY in the other service direction. In determining the interval between event points, the system considers the times required for opening and closing the doors, photocell delays, departure delays and the times required for the elevator to travel to the target floors. As for serving the landing calls, the internal control used in the simulation employs a collection priniciple. This means that a moving elevator picks up all landing calls in its service direction unless it already has a full load in the car. An elevator which becomes idle is sent to serve the nearest landing call. If no such call exists, the elevator is parked. The floors where elevators can be parked depend on the traffic situation. Implementation of the control In the procedure of the invention, the operations shown in figure 4 are carried out. The group control system of the elevator knows the basic facts relating to the elevators, such as the number of elevators, number of floors, elevator types and the closing and opening times of doors and the related delays. It also knows any functional features that are not to be decided even by an optimizing control procedure, such as fixed parking floors and zone divisions. In addition, the group control system receives estimates of traffic flow for each floor, based on statistics and the current date and time. As for landing calls, only the time of entry is assumed to be known. The number of customers inside the elevator car is assumed to be known on the basis of the weight data obtained from the load-weighing device of the car. When an elevator arrives at a decision point, the group control system is informed about this via the elevator control system. The group control system has access to the status data of each elevator in the bank, as well as to the landing call status data. The alternatives possible in a decision situation are defined by means of a computer in the group control unit 7 e.g. according to the operational model presented in figure 2. Since an elevator group contains several elevators, the alternative decisions possible for each elevator must be considered. For example, if the group consists of L elevators and each of these has c decision alternatives, the number of decision alternatives for the whole system will be m = c L . The real alternatives may vary greatly depending on the operating environment and the requirements applying in each case. After the decision alternatives have been defined, the computer selects at random a given number of different realizations for the unknown quantities of the decision situation, such as the numbers and target floors of the customers behind the landing calls, as well as for new external events in the future, such as the times of arrival, floors of departure and destination floors of new customers. The selections are made on the basis of estimates of amounts of traffic based on statistics in the manner described in the next section. In each round of random selections, after the realization has been determined, a simulation of the elevator system is performed. It will be advantageous to go through all the decision alternatives with the same realization to minimize the random errors occurring in the comparison of the advantages of each alternative. In the execution of the simulation, a given previously defined control policy, such as collection control, is obeyed in all the decision situations encountered. The simulation covers a predetermined interval of time. After the simulation, the costs of each decision alternative are calculated. The target function to be minimized is e.g. the customer's waiting time, travelling time or equivalent, or a combination of several factors, in which case it may also include quantities like the number of departures of elevators or the distance travelled by them. The cost of a decision alternative is the cumulative result of the selected cost function for the simulation period. After a preselected number of simulations have been performed, the alternative whose costs on the average are lowest is selected as the decision to be realized. Generation of realizations The arrivals of customers on each floor are assumed to take place according to the Poisson process. Since there is always at least one customer behind a call, the following formula applies: P{ X = 1 + n } = (λt) n /n! * e -λt , where λ represents the intensity of arrivals of passengers travelling from the floor in question in the direction concerned and t is the length of time for which the call has been in effect. If some of the customers behind the call have already entered the elevator, then the Poisson distribution must be made conditional with respect to the number n s of customers having entered. In this case, the number of customers yet to enter follows the distribution P{ X = 1 + n| X≥n s } = (λt) n /n! *[ j=n s -1 ∞ ((λt) j /j!)] -1 when n≥n s ≥1. Similarly, it is necessary to draw at random the destinations of the customers behind the landing calls. The distribution of these destinations is determined by the traffic intensities λ ij , the subscripts i and j referring to floors of departure and destination . The number of customers going from floor i to floor j is obtained from the distribution P{i→j| i↑} = λ ij /(Σλ ik ). The distribution of the number of passengers travelling in the down direction is calculated in a corresponding manner. Also, the distribution of the customers behind car calls is calculated similarly, but its exact value is not so important for the simulation. According to the Poisson process assumption, the intervals between arrivals of new customers are drawn at random independently of each other from the exponential distribution. For new customers, a floor of entry, direction and destination are also drawn at random. New customers are generated for a certain period starting from the time of decision. In contructing the first realization, the quantities are not selected at random. Instead, it is preferable to assign them the most probable values in order to achieve a typical realization. In the above, the invention has been described in reference to one of its embodiments. However, the presentation is not to be interpreted as constituting a restriction, but the embodiments of the invention may vary freely within the limits defined by the following claims. For example, decision situations encountered within a short interval can be handled together by considering all the combinations of the decision alternatives when choosing the best decision.

Claims: Procedure for controlling an elevator group consisting of several elevators and related call devices and a control system which controls each elevator in a manner determined by the calls entered and the existing control instructions, characterized in that, when the control system has to decide between two or more possible actions, a decision analysis is performed in real timed by studying the effects resulting from each alternative decision, said effects being estimated by simulating by a Monte-Carlo type method the future behaviour of the elevator system in the case of each alternative decision, for which simulation realizations are generated at random for the unknown quantities associated with the current state of the elevator system and for new external future events, and a control decision is made on the basis of the results of the decision analysis. Procedure according to claim 1, characterized in that a number of different realizations are generated for all unknown quantities associated with the current state of the elevator system and with new external events, and that a simulation is performed separately for each realization of each decision alternative. Procedure according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that realizations are generated on the basis of estimated traffic intensities, said realizations specifying the numbers and destination floors of the customers behind landing calls and about the times of arrival and floors of departure and destination of new customers. Procedure according to any one of claims 1 - 3, characterized in that the subsequent decisions encountered during the simulation of the elevator system are made in accordance with a given preselected control policy. Procedure according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized in that a policy of collection control is employed in the simulation. Procedure according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the decision analysis is performed considering the result of a predefined target function. Procedure according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the control decision is selected by choosing the alternative that yields the best average result in the repeated simulations. Procedure according to claim 6 or 7, characterized in that the objective is to minimize the average waiting time or travelling time of the passengers or the average number of calls in effect or any weighted combination of these, possibly further combined with the number of departures of elevators per unit of time and with the average number of moving elevators, the latter two numbers being suitably weighted. Procedure according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the interdependencies of decision situations relating to different elevators but realized nearly simultaneously are taken into account by considering different combinations of possible decision alternatives for the elevators. Procedure according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized in that, for each decision alternative, the same realizations are used for the unknown quantitites. Procedure according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the simulation for the estimation of the resulting effects is implemented covering a predetermined length of time. Procedure according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the time of generation of events is a predetermined period of time from the moment of decision onwards.

Inventors: AALTO SAMULI, VIRTAMO JORMA, AALTO, SAMULI, VIRTAMO, JORMA
Applicants: KONE ELEVATOR GMBH
Application year: 1993
Main classification: B66B1
IPC codes: B66B1, G05B13