Patent Abstract:
An elevator installation with multiple deck cars serves several floors simultaneously with one stop is controlled such that the travel requests are allocated to the most suitable elevator car of the elevator group and the allocation of a travel request from a starting-point floor to a destination floor to a car deck of the elevator car takes place shortly before reaching the starting-point floor. A travel request can also be redistributed or allocated to another deck at any time up to shortly before reaching the starting-point floor. The allocation of the travel request is carried out in dependence on general criteria and/or in dependence on allocated travel requests for the region of the starting-point floor and/or in dependence on allocated travel requests for the region of the destination floor.

Full Description:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention relates to a method of controlling an elevator installation with multiple cars, by means of which several floors can be served with one stop, wherein the travel requests are allocated to the elevator car. 
     There has become known from the European patent specification EP 0 459 169 a destination call control for a elevator installation with multiple cars, wherein a call is allocated directly after input and the allocated elevator and the position of the elevator car are displayed on a display field of the actuated call registration device. Associated with each car deck is the call store in which are stored the calls that are input at the main stopping point and characterize the destination floors. A switching circuit is connected at the input side with the call stores in such a manner that in dependence on an allocated call the relevant multiple car is established as stopping at even-numbered/uneven-numbered or uneven-numbered/even-numbered floor pairs. At the output side, the switching circuit is connected by way of a switching device with a comparison device, so that, in dependence on a further call still to be allocated, neither the multiple cars stopping at even-numbered/uneven-numbered floor pairs or the multiple cars stopping at uneven-numbered/even-numbered floor pairs can participate in the comparison and allocation method. 
     A disadvantage of the known device is that the route of the multiple car is already limited to the main stopping point by the allocation of the even-numbered/uneven-numbered or the uneven-numbered/even-numbered floor, which in turn adversely influences the carrying capacity of the elevator installation. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention concerns a method for the operation of an elevator installation meets the objective of avoiding the disadvantages of the known device and of providing for control of a elevator installation with multiple cars in which the allocation of the car decks improves the performance of the elevator installation. 
     The destination call control offers, with the call input at the floor and with the knowledge of the destination floor for each passenger, very important information which is of primary significance for the selection of the optimum elevator. Experiences with elevator installations with multiple cars and simulations show that it is very important in the case of elevator installations with multiple cars to minimize the number of stops of the multiple cars. This can only be achieved if the allocation of the car decks can be changed up to the last possible moment. It is of no significance to the user which deck brings him to the destination. The method according to the present invention has the purpose of a dynamic deck allocation to the individual destination calls. With the method, the allocation of each car deck is optimized on the basis of analysis of the allocations of other calls not only at the starting-point floor and the environment thereof, but also at the destination floor and the environment thereof. 
     The advantages achieved by the method according to the invention are essentially to be seen in that the number of necessary stops of the elevator car is automatically minimized. Moreover, there is prevention of unnecessary overlapping stops. An overlapping stop arises in the case of an elevator car with, for example, two car decks when only three instead of four floors are served with two stops. The allocation of the floors to several elevators of an elevator group can be optimized. In the case of between-floor traffic each of the elevators can be used; a division in even-numbered/uneven-numbered groups or uneven-numbered/even-numbered groups is not necessary. The users can be served in an optimum manner by matching the loading of the car decks or with full load of one car deck. The elevators can also be better utilized for special journeys, for example VIP operation. 
     An elevator group consists of, for example, a group of six elevators A, B, C, D, E, F each with a respective multiple car. It will be assumed that for a new destination call from the starting point floor S to the destination floor Z the allocation algorithm determines, in accordance with a known costs calculation principle for destination call controls, the elevator B as the most favorable elevator in terms of cost. Directly thereafter the car deck executing the travel request for the starting-point floor S to the destination floor Z is determined in accordance with the method according to the present invention. The method for dynamic allocation of the car decks is explained in more detail in the following description. The deck allocation is carried out internally of the control without communication to the user. 
    
    
     DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
     The above, as well as other advantages of the present invention, will become readily apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description of a preferred embodiment when considered in the light of the accompanying drawings in which: 
     FIG. 1 is a flow diagram showing an overview of the deck allocation method according to the present invention; 
     FIG. 2 is a flow diagram showing Part  1  of the method of FIG. 1 in more detail in which the deck allocation is performed on the basis of general criteria; 
     FIG. 3 is a flow diagram showing Part  1 A of the method of FIG. 1 in more detail in which the deck allocation is performed on the basis of predetermined stops at the starting-point floor; 
     FIG. 4 is a flow diagram showing Part  1 B of the method of FIG. 1 in more detail in which the deck allocation is performed on the basis of predetermined stops at the destination floor; 
     FIG. 5 is a flow diagram showing Part  2 A of the method of FIG. 1 in more detail in which the deck allocation is performed on the basis of possible stops at the starting-point floor; 
     FIG. 6 is a flow diagram showing Part  2 B of the method of FIG. 1 in more detail in which the deck allocation is performed on the basis of possible stops at the destination floor; 
     FIG. 7 is a flow diagram showing Part  3 A of the method of FIG. 1 in more detail in which the deck allocation is performed on the basis of predetermined position overlaps, caused by booked alighting passengers, in the region of the starting-point floor; 
     FIG. 8 is a flow diagram showing Part  3 B of the method of FIG. 1 in more detail in which the deck allocation is performed on the basis of predetermined position overlaps, caused by booked alighting passengers, in the region of the destination floor; 
     FIG. 9 is a flow diagram showing Part  4 A of the method of FIG. 1 in more detail in which the deck allocation is performed on the basis of possible position overlaps, caused by booked boarding passengers, in the region of the starting-point floor; and 
     FIG. 10 is a flow diagram showing Part  4 B of the method of FIG. 1 in more detail in which the deck allocation is performed on the basis of possible position overlaps, caused by booked boarding passengers, in the region of the destination floor. 
    
    
     DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT 
     The method of the present invention, which is shown in one embodiment illustrated in the drawings, for deck allocation relates to a elevator car with a lower and an upper deck (double-decker), wherein a load measuring device is provided for each deck. The method is also feasible for use on elevator cars with three or more decks. A typical double-decker car (also known as a double car elevator) with an associated group control is shown in the U.S. Pat. No. 5,086,883 which is incorporated herein by reference. 
     The abbreviations and references employed in the description of the method according to the present invention are defined as follows: 
     OD—Upper deck of the elevator car. 
     UD—Lower deck of the elevator car. 
     S—Starting-point floor (the travel request begins here with the input of the destination floor Z). 
     Region of the starting-point floor—Region comprising the adjacent floors S+1, S−1 or S+1, S+2, S−1, S−2 of the starting-point floor S. 
     Z—Destination floor (the travel request ends here). 
     Region of the destination floor—Region comprising the adjacent floors Z+1, Z−1 or Z+1, Z+2, Z−1, Z−2 of the destination floor Z. 
     LOD—Load of upper deck (load is measured each time before the start and stored). 
     LUD—Load of lower deck (load is measured each time before the start and stored). 
     OGLOD—Upper load limit of upper deck (selectable as a parameter). 
     OGLUD—Upper load limit of lower deck (selectable as a parameter). 
     UGLOD—Lower load limit of upper deck (selectable as a parameter). 
     UGLUD—Lower load limit of lower deck (selectable as a parameter). 
     PHBR—Braking phase of the elevator car (travel of the elevator car in coming to a stop before a floor stop). 
     PHH—Stop of the elevator car at a floor. 
     SP—Selector position (the selector leads during travel of the elevator car and scans the approaching floor). 
     SPOD—Selector position of upper deck. 
     SPUD—Selector position of lower deck. 
     Service OD—Use of the elevator car as a single-deck car (only the upper car deck serves as a transport deck). 
     Service UD—Use of the elevator car as a single-deck car (only the lower car deck serves as a transport deck). 
     Load balancing—Attempt towards loads of equal size in the two decks. The load balancing is selectable by means of parameters. 
     Predetermined stop VH—Required stop determined by boarding passengers or passengers located in the car (boarding stop or alighting stop). The elevator car must stop at this floor by the determined deck, because by virtue of the call allocation and deck allocation at least one passenger boards or alights. 
     Possible stop MH—A stop, which is planned by already booked passengers, with a planned deck at a floor. At least one boarding passenger or alighting passenger can still be served by one of the two car decks at this floor. 
     Reversal point—The lowest floor which the elevator reaches by the lower deck during a downward travel before the elevator changes the travel direction or the highest floor which the elevator reaches by the upper deck during an upward travel before the elevator changes the travel direction. 
     Position overlap—A position overlap arises with an elevator car with, for example, two car decks when only three, instead of four, floors are served by two stops. 
     Predetermined position overlap—Three adjacent floors are served by two stops, due to a Predetermined stop. Additional position overlaps are avoided by the method according to the invention. 
     Possible position overlap—Three adjacent floors are served by two stops, due to a Possible stop. Additional position overlaps are avoided by the method according to the invention. 
     Possible alighting passenger—It is provided for a specific floor that at least one already booked passenger, who has not yet boarded one of the decks, will alight. The previous deck allocation for this passenger could accordingly still be changed. Such a deck allocation change would, however, have a consequence of retrogressive action in the direction of the travel planning. Also, the previously applicable deck allocation would have to be changed for the boarding floor of this passenger, wherein this could cause further retrospective changes on other allocations. Accordingly, in this case a deck allocation change for the possible alighting passenger is renounced and, instead, a position overlap is accepted. 
     Possible boarding passenger—It is provided for a specific floor that at least one already booked passenger will board. The previous deck allocation for this passenger could accordingly still be changed. Such a deck allocation change would have an effect on the destination floor of this passenger. Such a deck allocation change for the a destination floor could have the consequence of further changes in the deck allocations for other passengers in the region of this destination floor. These possible deck allocation changes lie in the direction of the travel planning after the floor in question. Thus, the probability is higher (as with retrospective changes) that less deck allocation changes for other booked passengers are meant. Accordingly, a rebooking of the deck allocation for the possible boarding passenger is accepted if a position overlap is thereby prevented. 
     In the flow charts of the drawings, usual symbols are used, which together with the above legends are self-explanatory. 
     FIG. 1 is a flow chart of a deck allocation method  20  according to the present invention that begins allocation on the basis of general criteria in a step  21 . The method  20  continues allocation based upon travel requests in the region of the starting-point floor in a step  22  and completes allocation based upon travel requests in the region of the destination floor in a step  23 . 
     FIG. 2 shows a group of steps  30  undertaken at the start of the method according to the present invention, according to which the servicing of the destination call has been allocated to the most favorable elevator with a multiple car. The selection begins at a step  31  and further steps lead to a deck allocation on the basis of general criteria (Part  1  step  32 ). 
     In case only one of the two car decks UD, OD is to execute travel requests (steps  33  and  35 ), the destination call or the travel request is immediately allocated to one of the two car decks UD, OD (steps  34  and  36 ). It is thereafter checked whether the selector position SPUD (step  37 ) or SPOD (step  38 ) of the one or other car decks UD, OD is the same as the starting-point floor S and whether the elevator car is disposed in the braking phase PHBR or is engaged at a stop PHH at the floor (steps  39  and  40 ). If the elevator car is disposed in the braking phase PHBR or is engaged at a stop PHH at the floor, the travel request is allocated to one of the two car decks UD, OD (steps  41  and  42 ). 
     Parameter load balancing is detected (step  43 ) and if it is activated, it is checked whether the load LOD, LUD (steps  44  through  47 ) of the car decks OD, UD is greater or smaller than preselectable load limits OGLOD, OGLUD, UGLOD, UGLUD in order to allocate the passenger to the car deck UD, OD (steps  48  and  49 ) with less loading. The method then exits the group of steps  30  and proceeds to Part  1 A (step  50 ). 
     FIG. 3 shows the deck allocation on the basis of predetermined stops in a group of steps  51 . The method enters the group  51  at the step  50  and initially it is checked whether the desired travel from the starting-point floor S to the destination floor Z is in upward direction (step  52  S&lt;Z). If the check yields “N” (no, S&gt;Z), the method is processed analogously to the solution illustrated in FIGS. 2 through 10 (step  53 ). In terms of content, the same interrogations are carried out, wherein the interrogations are adapted to the starting point floor or destination floor in accordance with the respective travel direction of the elevator. 
     The method of the following description applies to the case wherein travel from the starting-point floor S to the destination floor Z is in an upward direction and the elevator car travels to the starting-point floor S in an upward direction (step  54  SP&lt;S) or in a downward direction (SP&gt;S). 
     If the travel direction check (step  52  S&lt;Z) yields “Y” (yes), it is checked on the basis of the selector position SP whether the elevator travels to the starting-point floor S in the upward direction (step  54  SP&lt;S). If the step  54  check yields “Y”, the further steps relate to predetermined stops which are caused by boarding passengers or passengers already located in the elevator car for the floor S−1 (step  55 ) or the starting-point floor S (step  56 ) on the one hand, or the starting-point floor S (step  57  or the floor S+1 (step  58 ) on the other hand. If the check step  54  (SP&lt;S) yields “N” (starting-point floor S traveled to in the downward direction), the further steps relate to the checking of the reversal point (steps  59  and  60 ). According to the respective checking output in the individual checking steps, the desired travel is allocated to the upper car deck OD (step  62 ) or the lower car deck UD (steps  61  and  63 ). The method then exits the group of steps  51  and proceeds to Part  1 B (step  64 ). 
     FIG. 4 shows the deck allocation on the basis of predetermined stops in a group of steps  65 . The stops (step  66 ) are caused by boarding passengers or passengers already located in the elevator car for the floor Z−1 (step  67 ) or the destination floor Z (step  68 ) on the one hand, or the destination floor Z (step  69 ) or the floor Z+1 (step  70 ) on the other hand. According to the respective checking output in the individual checking steps the desired travel is allocated to the upper car deck OD (step  71 ) or the lower car deck UD (step  72 ). The method then exits the group of steps  65  and proceeds to Part  2 A (step  73 ). 
     FIG. 5 shows the deck allocation on the basis of possible stops in a group of steps  74 . The stops (step  75 ) are caused by booked, but not yet boarded, passengers for the floor S−1 (step  76 ) or the starting-point floor S (step  77 ) on the one hand, or the starting-point floor S ( 78 ) or the floor S+1 ( 79 ) on the other hand. These passengers can still be served by each car deck OD, UD. If the check (SP&lt;S) yields “N” (starting-point floor S traveled to in downward direction), the further steps relate to checking of the reversal point. According to the respective checking output in the individual checking steps the desired travel is allocated to the upper car deck OD (step  80 ) or the lower car deck UD (step  81 ). The method then exits the group of steps  74  and proceeds to Part  2 B (step  82 ). 
     FIG. 6 shows the deck allocation on the basis of possible stops in a group of steps  83 . The stops (step  84 ) are caused by booked, but not yet alighted, passengers for the floor Z−1 (step  85 ) or the destination floor Z (step  86 ) on the one hand, or the destination floor Z ( 87 ) or the floor Z+1 ( 88 ) on the other hand. These passengers can still be served by each car deck OD, UD. According to the respective checking output in the individual steps the desired travel is allocated to the upper car deck OD (step  89 ) or the lower car deck UD (step  90 ). The method then exits the group of steps  83  and proceeds to Part  3 A (step  91 ). 
     If in the preceding Parts  1 A,  1 B,  2 A and  2 B no predetermined stops and no possible stops could be found, the attempt is continued by seeking position overlaps. 
     FIG. 7 shows the deck allocation on the basis of predetermined position overlaps in a group of steps  92 . The overlaps (step  93 ) are caused by predetermined stops for the floor S−2 (step  94 ), the floor S−1 (step  95 ), the floor S+1 (step  96 ) or the floor S+2 (step  97 ). In accordance with the respective checking output in the individual checking steps the desired travel is allocated to the upper car deck OD (step  99 ) or the lower car deck UD (step  98 ). The method then exits the group of steps  92  and proceeds to Part  3 B (step  100 ). 
     FIG. 8 shows the deck allocation on the basis of predetermined position overlaps in a group of steps  101 . The overlaps (step  102 ) are caused by predetermined stops for the floor Z−2 (step  103 ), the floor Z−1 (step  104 ), the floor Z+1 (step  105 ) or the floor Z+2 (step  106 ). In accordance with the respective checking output in the individual checking steps the desired travel is allocated to the upper car deck OD (step  108 ) or the lower car deck UD (step  107 ). The method then exits the group of steps  101  and proceeds to Part  4 A (step  109 ). 
     FIG. 9 shows the deck allocation on the basis of possible position overlaps in a group of steps  110 . The overlaps (step  111 ) are caused by possible stops for the floor S−2 (step  112 ) or the floor S+2 (step  119 ). For the floors S−1 and S+1 distinction is still made between “possible alighting passengers” (steps  113  and  116 ) and “possible boarding passengers” (steps  114  and  117 ) in order to decide about a possible deck allocation change (steps  115  and  118 ). According to the respective checking output in the individual checking steps the desired travel is allocated to the upper car deck OD (steps  121  and  123 ) or the lower car deck UD (steps  120  and  122 ). The method then exits the group of steps  110  and proceeds to Part  4 B (step  124 ). 
     FIG. 10 shows the deck allocation on the basis of possible position overlaps in a group  125 . The overlaps (step  126 ) are caused by possible stops for the floor Z−2 (step  127 ) or the floor Z+2 (step  134 ). For the floors Z−1 and Z+1 distinction is still made between “possible alighting passengers” (steps  128  and  131 ) and “possible boarding passengers” (steps  129  and  132 ) in order to decide about a possible deck allocation change (steps  130  and  133 ). According to the respective checking output in the individual checking steps the desired travel is allocated to the upper car deck OD (steps  137 ,  138  and  140 ) or the lower car deck UD (steps  136  and  139 ). 
     If in the preceding parts  1 A,  1 B,  2 A,  2 B,  3 A,  3 B,  4 A and  4 B no predetermined stops, no possible stops, no predetermined position overlaps or no possible position overlaps could be found (step  135 ), the boarding passenger at the even-numbered starting-point floor is allocated to the upper car deck OD (step  140 ) and the boarding passenger at the uneven-numbered starting-point floor is allocated to the lower car deck UD (step  141 ). 
     The selection of the suitable car deck and thus the allocation of the travel request from the starting-point floor S to the destination floor Z takes place dynamically. The above-mentioned steps are performed continuously and the selection of the appropriate car decks optimized. The allocation takes place definitively, for example, only in the case of onset of braking for reaching the starting-point floor S. 
     In accordance with the provisions of the patent statutes, the present invention has been described in what is considered to represent its preferred embodiment. However, it should be noted that the invention can be practiced otherwise than as specifically illustrated and described without departing from its spirit or scope.

Technology Classification (CPC): 8