Method for the computer-aided control of the flow of processes

Abstract

The invention comprises a method for computer-aided control of the operation of processes in a shunting system, in which the operating speed of processes running along a path to a destination (D) in the shunting system is reduced as they pass track brakes located in the path of the respective process. For at least one directly consecutive pair of processes, of which the first process is the leading process (1) and the following process is the trailing process (2), the operating speeds of the leading and trailing processes are computer-aided such that the trailing process overtakes the leading process at a coupling point (CP) before reaching the destination. The trailing process and the leading process are automatically coupled as soon as these two processes meet. Furthermore, a computing environment, a computer program, and a computer-readable storage medium are included.

Description

Technical field

[0001] The invention comprises a method for computer-aided control of the execution of processes. Furthermore, the invention comprises a computing environment for controlling processes. The invention also comprises a computer program product containing program instructions. Finally, the invention comprises a computer-readable storage medium containing data. Technical background

[0002] In shunting yards, wagons or groups of wagons, also known as shunts, are sorted from an uphill track into different direction tracks using the force of gravity. For efficiency and reliability, the operation of the shunt is typically highly automated. This involves automatic speed control of the shunts from one braking stage (consisting of uphill brakes) to the next (consisting of downhill brakes). This ensures that the directional track brake located at the beginning of each direction track (which can serve as an example of the downhill brake) provides sufficient deceleration for the shunts under all conditions typically encountered in practice.

[0003] According to current technology, the theoretically possible unloading capacities are not fully utilized when shunting shunts over a hump. The best current method relies on reducing all shunts to the running characteristics of the slowest comparable shunt in order to reliably avoid collisions and thus homogenize the unloading processes. The required braking power of the individual track brakes can be determined starting with the track brake furthest downhill and then progressively uphill, as described in document EP 2720926 B2.

[0004] In shunting yards, the lagging (i.e., the shunts that occur later in the sequence relative to a specific shunt) therefore limits the capacity of the shunting track, as all shunts must only meet at the destination to comply with all operational requirements for avoiding collisions on the shunting path (also called catching up). Otherwise, the collision on the shunting path would result in impermissible relative speeds and, due to the partially elastic collision, on the one hand, uncontrolled re-acceleration of the shunted shunt with potentially excessively high collision speeds at the destination, and on the other hand, the shunted shunt would fall short of the target distance. This is particularly relevant in the case of a shunting sequence consisting of successive good shunts (i.e., shunts with better running characteristics compared to poor shunts due to, for example, greater mass and / or lower running resistance) and poor shunts (i.e., shunts with significantly lower running characteristics).For runners with inferior running characteristics compared to those with good running characteristics (e.g., lower mass and / or increased running resistance), this requirement necessitates a long cycle time at the last controlling brake. This is because the leading runner with good running characteristics must slowly release the brake to maintain the target speed, whereas the following runner with poor running characteristics must release the brake quickly to reach the target speed at all. This long cycle time often reduces the push-off speed on the hill and thus reduces the potential running performance.

[0005] The aim of shunting in a shunting yard is therefore to ensure that all shunts, under the influence of gravity, run as smoothly and without impact as possible from the hillside to the pre-selected directional tracks leading to their respective destinations. This is based on automatically controlled switches and brakes; in higher-capacity yards, these are supplemented by speed-controlled shunting locomotives and conveyor systems. The function of the brakes located along the shunting path is to compensate for the shunting yard's inherent characteristics as it travels through the distribution zone, so that the shunting process remains controllable due to the smooth movement of all shunts through the distribution zone and into the directional tracks. Otherwise, the shunting yard would have to be stopped by an emergency stop.

[0006] In the operation of shunting systems, it is common practice, in the event of an emergency stop, to allow a trailing shunt to buffer onto a leading shunt that is braked (held in the brake), regardless of whether the buffering exceeds the permissible speed difference between the shunts. Even though this can lead to a high load on the affected shunts, the emergency stop measure is implemented if otherwise significant damage to the shunting system is to be expected (for example, because a downstream shunt has derailed and no further shunt should collide with it).

[0007] Documents EP 4328112 A1 and EP 4328113 A1 describe, for example, a method for computer-aided simulation and / or execution of numerous operations in a shunting yard can be applied to achieve the best possible utilization of safety margins by enabling the operations to be carried out in the shortest possible succession. This allows the throughput of a shunting yard to be increased to some extent. However, this only mitigates, but does not eliminate, the problem described. EP 4328112 A1 explains three known methods for approximate calculations. Summary of the invention

[0008] The object of the invention is to solve the problems described in the prior art. In particular, it is an object to improve a method for the computer-aided control of the execution of processes in a processing plant such that safety margins in the temporal sequence of the discharges in the processing plant can be kept as small as possible in order to increase the processing capacity. Furthermore, it is an object of the invention to provide a computer program and a computer-readable storage medium with which the improved method can be implemented.

[0009] According to a first aspect of the invention, a method for computer-aided control of the running of processes in a processing plant is described, in which, in order to control the running speed of processes that run along a running path to a destination in the processing plant, the running speed is reduced during the passage of track brakes located in the running path of the respective process.

[0010] The destination is usually the point on the track where the train is to come to a complete stop. Ideally, the train at the destination forms a train consist with other trains that have already passed through. Each train thus has its own individual destination on the track. To reach its destination, the train is slowed down by the track brakes. Since the braking force of the track brakes is adjustable, it can be used to control the train's speed.

[0011] A device is computer-aided or computer-implemented if it has a computing environment, or a method is computer-implemented if a computing environment performs at least one step of the method.

[0012] A computing environment is an IT infrastructure consisting of functional components such as processors, memory units, programs, and the data to be processed by these programs. This data is used to execute at least one application, which has a specific task to perform. Additional functional components can include sensors and actuators, which enable the computing environment to interact with the outside world. The IT infrastructure can also be organized as a network of these functional components.

[0013] Within a computing environment, computing instances form functional units that can be assigned to applications (defined, for example, by a number of program modules) and can execute them. During application execution, these functional units form self-contained systems, either physically (e.g., computer, processor) and / or virtually (e.g., program module).

[0014] Computers are electronic devices consisting of several functional components and possessing data processing capabilities. For example, computers can be clients, servers, handheld computers, communication devices, and other electronic devices for data processing, which may include processors and memory units and may also be interconnected via interfaces to form a network.

[0015] Processors can be, for example, converters, sensors for generating measurement signals, or electronic circuits. A processor can be a central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor, a microcontroller, or a digital signal processor, possibly in combination with a memory unit for storing program instructions and data. The term "processor" can also refer to a virtualized processor or a soft CPU.

[0016] Storage units can be implemented on computer-readable storage devices in the form of random-access memory (RAM) or data storage devices (hard disk or data carrier).

[0017] Program modules are individual software functional units that enable a program sequence of process steps according to the invention. These software functional units can be implemented in a single computer program or in several communicating computer programs. The interfaces implemented here can be implemented in software within a single processor or in hardware if multiple processors are used.

[0018] Interfaces can be implemented using hardware, for example wired or wireless connections, or software, for example as interaction between individual program modules of one or more computer programs, and serve to exchange data, preferably in the form of digital data sets or analog signals.

[0019] To avoid misunderstandings, it should be noted that individual claim features are numbered with lowercase Latin letters, without regard to the claim numbering. This means that each letter appears only once in the entire claim set, allowing for unambiguous addressing of the relevant claim features without mentioning the claim number. Therefore, the order of the letters is irrelevant.

[0020] According to the invention, it is provided that for at least one directly successive pair of processes, of which the first process to occur forms the precursor and the process following it forms the postcursor, a) the speeds of the leading and trailing vehicles are controlled by computer in such a way that the trailing vehicle catches up with the leading vehicle at a coupling point before its destination, b) the trailing vehicle and the leading vehicle are automatically coupled as soon as these two processes meet.

[0021] The coupling point, as defined by the invention, is the point on the shunting path where the shunts involved, i.e., the leading and trailing shunts, collide due to a catching-up process and are automatically coupled. In this sense, the final destination of the shunt on the directional track, where it ends its shunting path, also offers the possibility of automatically coupling successive shunts. This final destination is also referred to in this description of the invention as the destination of the shunt. However, coupling points between the individual track brakes forming the shunting destinations are also essential to the invention, as they allow the shunts to be coupled in free running.

[0022] One advantage of the invention is that it creates greater flexibility in sequence planning, leading to higher throughput. An analysis of sequence processes shows that, due to the lack of known running resistance at the beginning of the sequence at each track brake, a continuum of possible run-down speeds, and thus times for entering the next running destination, arises for each sequence (run-down destinations are determined by the track brakes, where the run-down speed can be reduced, and in the direction track, where the sequence should come to a standstill). At the subsequent track brake, each of these possible times becomes the basis for a new set of run-down speeds and thus time durations until the next running destination. The number of solutions multiplied increases with the number of brake stages of track brakes in the shunting system and the number of runs of a dismantling unit to be depressed.

[0023] An analysis of train sequences shows that, due to the lack of known rolling resistance at the beginning of the sequence at each track brake, a continuum of possible coasting speeds, and thus times for entering the next destination, arises for each sequence (destinations are determined by the track brakes, where the coasting speed can be reduced, and by the target point on the direction track, where the sequence should come to a standstill). At the subsequent track brake, each of these possible times becomes the basis for a new set of coasting speeds and thus time durations until the next destination. The number of possible solutions increases with the number of brake stages and the number of sequences of a train.

[0024] However, simply selecting a target speed for the next run says nothing about the actual runtime. If the running resistance within the confidence interval is low, the runtime at the specified target speed will differ significantly from that achieved with the highest running resistance within the confidence interval. Since all true runtimes using this method are only determined during the actual run, current best practices require sufficient time buffers to be built into each section of the track beforehand. These buffers are designed to prevent any overtaking maneuvers during the entire push-off process, regardless of the actual running resistances and thus the actual runtimes. It becomes clear that these time buffers can be reduced if overtaking maneuvers are permitted.The limiting factor is therefore not the requirement that no overtaking maneuvers may occur, but rather that they are permitted while observing a maximum permissible collision speed between the processes. This is where the invention comes in, by allowing overtaking maneuvers (i.e., the overtaking of the preceding vehicle by the following vehicle) to be permitted and even specifically planned. This allows for smaller time buffers to be planned, as these are then calculated based on a maximum relative speed during the overtaking maneuver and not on the condition that overtaking must be completely prevented.

[0025] It is important to understand the invention that a coupled sequence, i.e., a sequence in which a catching-up process has occurred between a precursor and a trailing vehicle, itself forms a precursor if a trailing vehicle follows it, and a trailing vehicle if a precursor precedes it. The method is therefore applicable to the coupled sequence in turn. In other words, several catching-up processes can occur sequentially along the sequence path for the same sequences, thereby making the coupled sequence progressively longer.

[0026] Particularly with the introduction of the digital automatic coupling (DAC), it is possible to allow the two processes to run in a controlled manner before reaching their destination. As a result of the subsequent engagement of the DAC, there is, according to the invention, no risk of uncontrolled collisions and re-acceleration of the disengaged process. It is essential to ensure compliance with the requirements for the resulting collision impact during free running, the effect of the coupling point on the further movement of the newly formed process, and its correct achievement of its original destination.

[0027] The fill level of sorting tracks can be limited if gaps form, for example, if a slow-moving train fails to reach its destination. Until now, this problem could only be solved by installing a high-performance conveyor or clearing system, a technical solution that, due to the very high infrastructure costs, is only implemented in high-performance facilities. In hump yards without these technical provisions, gaps must be cleared during operational breaks by pushing the trains together in the sorting track using a locomotive. The advantage of the invention is that, even in these hump yards without conveyor systems, typically those with medium throughput, it is possible to reduce the potential performance limitation caused by the train following the trains into the same sorting track.In systems with installed conveyor systems, the method can advantageously support these by the targeted formation of coupled processes from, for example, individual cars or groups of cars, thereby reducing long strokes.

[0028] According to a further aspect of the invention, a computing environment for controlling the processes of a process plant is described. According to this aspect, the invention provides that the environment is configured to perform at least step a) described above. The advantages associated with this aspect of the invention have already been explained above, and reference is made to these advantages.

[0029] According to a further aspect of the invention, a computer program product is described, containing program instructions that can be executed by a computing environment. According to this aspect, the invention provides that at least step a) of the method described above is executed.

[0030] According to the invention, a computer program product containing program modules with program instructions is described, wherein the program modules can run in the same computing instance or in several computing instances of the computing environment. The computer program product, which can comprise one or more computer programs, can be used to carry out the method according to the invention and / or its exemplary embodiments, and the advantages described above are achieved through its implementation.

[0031] According to a further aspect of the invention, a computer-readable storage medium containing data, which is stored as data records on the storage medium, is described. According to this aspect, the invention provides that the data records make the computer program product described above, according to the last preceding claim, executable.

[0032] Furthermore, a provisioning device for storing and / or providing the computer program in the form of a computer-readable storage medium is described. The provisioning device is, for example, a storage unit that stores the computer program and makes it available for retrieval. Alternatively or additionally, the provisioning device is a network service, a computer system, a server system, in particular a distributed computer system, such as a cloud-based system or virtual computer system, which stores the computer program on a computer-readable storage medium and preferably makes it available in the form of a data stream.

[0033] The provision of the computer program product takes the form of program modules describing program data sets as a file, in particular as a download file, or as a data stream, in particular as a download data stream. The computer program product is transferred, for example, using the provisioning device to a computing environment so that the method according to the invention can be executed in one or more computing instances of this computing environment. Embodiments of the invention

[0034] Further developments of the invention, describing variants, are explained below without limiting the basic idea of ​​the invention.

[0035] According to one variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined by the fact that c) it is checked whether the leading and trailing vehicles have their destination in the same direction track, d) in the event that the leading and trailing vehicles do not have their destination in the same direction track, the running speeds of these two runs are controlled in such a way that the trailing vehicle does not overtake the leading vehicle on a common section of their running path, e) and in the event that the leading and trailing vehicles have their destination in the same direction track, the steps a) and b) explained above are carried out.

[0036] An advantage of this variant is that the inventive method is only used when a catching-up operation involves two shunts with destinations on the same track. Only then can it be ensured that the resulting train (i.e., the coupled shunt) on the track contains only shunts that were previously assigned to it. Conversely, shunts destined for different tracks should not catch up with each other. The effort required to subsequently separate them would be greater than the increase in shunting capacity gained with the inventive method.

[0037] According to one variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined by the fact that f) in the case described above e) it is checked whether the two sequences exhibit similar or the same acceleration behavior on the sequence path within a predetermined bandwidth, g) in the case that the two sequences exhibit similar or the same acceleration behavior within the predetermined bandwidth, the sequence speed of the two sequences is controlled such that the trailing sequence only catches up with the leading sequence at the destination on their common sequence path, h) and in the case that the two sequences do not exhibit similar or the same acceleration behavior within the predetermined bandwidth, steps a) and b) according to claim 1 are carried out.

[0038] One advantage of this variant is that it allows for a distinction to be made as to whether an increase in throughput can actually be achieved through a catching-up operation. It should be taken into account that even a controlled catching-up operation with coupling according to the invention on open track involves a certain risk, so it can be dispensed with if a pair of successive operations (preceding and trailing) run at a similar speed and therefore an increase in throughput due to a catching-up operation can hardly be achieved or not at all.

[0039] If the leading and trailing vehicles have different running characteristics, meaning they exhibit different acceleration behavior (which can be negative but also positive), it is possible to force a catching-up maneuver by selectively controlling the track brakes. In such a case, the additional advantage is that the resulting coupled sequence has an acceleration behavior that lies between that of the faster and slower vehicles. In other words, the faster vehicle pulls the slower vehicle along, thus improving its poor acceleration. As a result, the faster vehicle then needs to be braked less, since it is slowed down by the slower vehicle.If such a result is achieved through a catch-up operation on open track, the control system of the shunting yard can subsequently be adjusted to allow for a faster run-off of the trailing section. At least those shunts that have not yet been released can be released with increased run-off capacity, meaning with lower safety margins, and thus faster and / or earlier. This requires appropriate control of the shunting locomotive.

[0040] According to one variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined by the fact that i) for the case h) described above, it is determined which of the two runs is a good runner and which of the two runs is a bad runner, j) in the case that the forerunner is the good runner and the trailing runner is the bad runner, the good runner is slowed down so much that the bad runner catches up with the good runner before the finish line, k) and in the case that the forerunner is the bad runner and the trailing runner is the good runner, the good runner is slowed down so little that the good runner catches up with the bad runner before the finish line.

[0041] One advantage of this variant is that a catching-up maneuver can also be forced if the high-performing train is ahead of the low-performing train. Without targeted intervention by controlling the track brakes, it would otherwise only be possible for the high-performing train to catch up with the low-performing train because the latter exhibits more favorable acceleration characteristics. However, it has been shown that an increase in throughput can also occur if a high-performing train is braked so strongly that it is overtaken by a low-performing train. This somewhat surprising result can be explained by the fact that, after the catching-up maneuver, as described above, the high-performing train carries the low-performing train along, thus improving the running characteristics of the coupled train compared to the low-performing train, so that the latter reaches its destination faster and the trailing train can therefore operate at a higher throughput.

[0042] According to one variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined by the fact that the relative speed between the trailing vehicle and the leading vehicle does not exceed a predetermined limit value when they collide.

[0043] One advantage of this variant is that it allows for the specification of the maximum loads that should occur during the retrieval process. The higher the relative speed permitted by the limit value, the higher the potential loads acting on the processes. It is also possible to define the limit value itself variably, so that a higher limit value is used during periods of high demand (i.e., at least one, at least two, or many cutting units waiting to be processed in the system) than during periods of lower demand (i.e., no, one, or only a few cutting units waiting to be processed in the system).

[0044] According to one variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined by the fact that, in the event of a required emergency stop of the drainage system, l) regardless of a realizable relative speed between trailing and leading wheels at the point of collision, the above-mentioned steps a) and b) are carried out, m) the coupled unit is braked in a track brake located on the remaining running path.

[0045] Another possible use of the method is therefore to replace, in the event of an emergency stop, the known buffering of a fast-running sequence onto a sequence braked in a brake by coupling in free running according to the invention, so that instead the newly formed overall sequence can be braked in the subsequent brake without the excessively rapid, material-damaging buffering.

[0046] One advantage of this variant is that the impact forces acting on the processes can be reduced to the minimum achievable in the given situation, thereby reducing material stress. It can also be provided that, in the event of an emergency stop, applicable limits for relative speed are overridden (i.e., do not need to be considered). The rationale behind this measure is that even a catching-up maneuver with an impact speed above this limit still represents a lower stress than the impact of a following vehicle bumping into a stationary predecessor that is already engaged in braking.

[0047] According to one variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined by the fact that a computer-aided simulation of the processes in the shunting system is carried out to determine control parameters of the track brakes.

[0048] One advantage of this approach is that simulation enables computer-aided analysis of the complex processes within the system, as will be explained in more detail below. Computer-aided control makes it advantageous to optimize the control of the processes even as they are running, as soon as an assessment of their operational resistance is possible based on a simulation.

[0049] According to one variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined by the fact that during the simulation n) a time-distance curve is calculated for the forerunner and the trailing truck, o) potential coupling locations are calculated along the time-distance curve, taking into account the running resistance of the forerunner and the trailing truck as well as the limit for the relative velocity, wherein these coupling locations lie in a permissible section for coupling locations on the runway. p) a potential coupling location is selected and step a) is carried out such that the trailing truck catches up with the forerunner at this selected coupling location.

[0050] The time-distance curve describes the time-distance behavior of the process in question, that is, the behavior of the process in terms of when it passes through which point along its path. Calculating the time-distance curve does not necessarily mean that it must be represented in a two-dimensional coordinate system, although this can be done for illustrative purposes, especially for operating personnel. For simulation purposes, however, it is sufficient that the time-distance curve is described in a manner suitable for computer-aided processing (tabularly or as a function).

[0051] The potential coupling locations lie within a section for coupling locations that forms part of the running path. In other words, due to the leeway in controlling the running processes via the track brakes, there is normally a set of possible coupling locations within this section. Theoretically, there are infinitely many coupling locations; however, for the practical implementation of the method according to the invention, it is sufficient to calculate a sufficiently large number of potential coupling locations, such that this number is adequate to estimate the extent of the section.

[0052] An algorithm determines several time-distance lines from the conditions for the correct achievement of the automatically coupled and thus newly assembled sequence at the destination, up to the point where fully automated control of the track brakes enables catching-up operations. For each potential coupling point along this curve, there can be a set of possibilities for the local relative velocities of the involved sequences, corresponding to its speed. These are coupled at a (permitted) relative velocity (this relative velocity is also called the collision velocity). The collection of all locations for which there are permissible local collision velocities of the sequences that can also be achieved by permissible coasting velocities from the controlling track brakes forms the aforementioned section of possible coupling points in the sequence path. This collection is also called the solution space.

[0053] According to one variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined by the fact that q) a time-distance curve of the coupled process is calculated for a multitude of potential coupling locations in the permissible range, r) the potential coupling location is selected whose associated time-distance curve achieves the earliest possible time of termination of all processes of the disassembly unit.

[0054] In other words, the solution for controlling the track brakes can be selected from the aforementioned solution space. This solution must, on the one hand, reduce the sequence time at the track brakes and, on the other hand, be stable against control inaccuracies and deviations in real-world operation. A technical compromise must be found here. In practice, for each preceding and following unit, those coasting speeds are selected in pairs that allow for a sufficient reduction in the sequence time and, in case this time is exceeded in real-world operation, provide sufficient reserves of possible coasting speeds for the following unit. These reserves ensure the correct formation of the overall sequence on the directional track. Since, with the exception of the first and last sequences of a detached shredding unit, every sequence has a preceding and a following unit, each sequence must be treated in pairs as a preceding and a following unit.

[0055] This makes it clear that every solution found for a pair of processes, consisting of a precursor and a follower, affects the available control over the adjacent pairs of processes. Finding a solution thus represents an optimization problem, where the optimization goal is to achieve the highest possible process performance. Process performance increases when the sum of the process sequence times between the processes of a train of vehicles (also called a decomposition unit) is as small as possible, thus achieving the earliest possible completion time for all processes of the decomposition unit (this is a found optimum, or at least a local optimum). Despite their complexity, such optimization problems can be solved in a known manner using optimization programs, so-called solvers.

[0056] According to one variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined by the fact that in the above-mentioned step r) at least one precursor and / or one trailing element of the coupled sequence, preferably all sequences of a dismantling unit pushed off by a pusher locomotive, are taken into account.

[0057] One advantage of this approach is that the positive impact of a catch-up process between a pre-carrier and a trailing unit, and the subsequent joint, potentially faster, operation, can be factored into the simulation for the trailing unit's run. Specifically, this means that improved run performance can be planned for the trailing unit if the safety margins of the respective pre-carrier and trailing unit have not been exhausted and can therefore be made available to subsequent runs of the trailing unit. Furthermore, a simulation advantageously allows for the timely recalculation of the computation times for adjusting the run control during the run itself, thus enabling a flexible response to circumstances that improve the run performance at the hump for the currently operating dismantling unit. Exemplary embodiments of the drawing

[0058] Further details of the invention are described below with reference to the drawing. Identical or corresponding drawing elements are provided with the same reference numerals in each figure and are only explained more than once to the extent that differences arise between the individual figures.

[0059] The exemplary embodiments described below are preferred embodiments of the invention. In these exemplary embodiments, the described components each represent individual variants of the invention, which can be considered independently of one another. Each of these variants further develops the invention independently and can therefore be regarded as part of the invention individually or in a combination other than that shown. Furthermore, the described components can also be combined with the variants of the invention described above. Figure 1A schematic sketch shows an embodiment of a process system with an embodiment of the computing environment according to the invention, in which a computer program for carrying out the method according to the invention is installed, with its interactions between the functional components used. Figure 2 shows in an exemplary time-distance diagram ZWL as the result of a simulation of an exemplary process of a disassembly unit according to Figure 1 . Figure 3 A diagram shows the speed profile of a good runner and a bad runner as a function of the discharge path and the possible coupling locations calculated from this for the coupling according to the invention on the discharge path. Figure 4An embodiment of the method according to the invention is shown as a flowchart, wherein the process steps shown can be implemented individually or in groups by program modules, and wherein the computing instances and interfaces are defined according to Figure 2 are indicated by example. Detailed description of the exemplary implementations

[0060] Figure 1 Figure 1 shows a schematic sketch of an embodiment of a drainage system 10 with an embodiment of the control device according to the invention, in which a computer program for executing the method according to the invention is installed. The upper part of the Figure 1 The track diagram of the hump 10 and the lower part of the figure represent the gradient profile or a longitudinal section of the hump 10.

[0061] According to the presentation of Figure 1The hump 10, which is part of a shunting facility for rail-bound traffic, has a hump ramp 20 starting from a mountain peak BG, to which an intermediate incline 30, a distribution zone 40 with diverting switches 80 to 86, and directional tracks 50 to 57 are connected. Furthermore, in Figure 1 Track brakes in the form of a hill brake section BB with hill brakes 90, 91, a valley brake section TB with valley brakes 60, 61 and a direction track brake section RGB with direction track brakes 70 to 77 are recognizable.

[0062] In addition to the aforementioned components of the drainage system 10, the following are also included: Figure 1Exemplary processes 100 ... 102 of a dismantling unit are shown, which are pushed over the hump by a pusher locomotive 110 or have been pushed off at a push-off point AP (which does not necessarily have to be at the mountain peak BG and is shown as an example for a process 102) and subsequently move along the hump system 10, driven by the acting force of gravity.

[0063] The control system for the valley brake platoon TB, containing valley brakes 60 and 61, is located in Figure 1A valley brake control unit 200 is indicated, which is connected to the valley brake assembly TB via an interface 211, which can be wired or wireless. For controlling the hill brake assembly BB, containing hill brakes 90 and 91, a hill brake control unit 250 is also indicated, which is connected to the hill brake assembly BB via an interface 251, which can be wired or wireless. Similarly, the directional track brake assembly RGB, containing directional track brakes 70 to 77, is connected to a directional track brake control unit 220 via an interface 221. For the sake of clarity, the following is shown here: Figure 1Only one interface each (211, 221, 251) between the respective brake assembly and the respective track brake control unit is shown as an example. Of course, each track brake can be controlled individually. It is also possible to provide a separate control unit for each track brake instead of a single control unit for the entire brake assembly (not shown).

[0064] The valley brake control 200 is connected to a central control device 230 of the hump yard 10 via an interface 231, the hill brake control 250 via an interface 233, and the directional track brake control via an interface 232. All control devices are part of a computing environment RU that executes the process. This means that the components 200, 220, 230, and 250 together form a control unit for controlling the track brakes—that is, the hill brakes 90 and 91, the valley brakes 60 and 61, and the directional track brakes 70 to 77—in the form of a distributed control system. Alternatively, it would of course also be possible, for example, for the hill brakes 90 and 91, the valley brakes 60 and 61, and the directional track brakes 70 to 77 to be directly connected to and controlled by the central control device 230 (not shown).

[0065] The determination of control parameters for the track brakes in the form of the hill brakes 90, 91, the valley brakes 60, 61, and the directional track brakes 70 to 77 of the hump yard 10 is carried out by considering and optimizing the respective speeds of the humps 100, 101, 102 across all brakes. In the described embodiment, it is assumed that all humps are intended for the directional track 50 and therefore pass the hill brake 91, the valley brake 60, and then the directional track brake 70 sequentially along their path.

[0066] For the purpose of carrying out the procedure, the control unit formed by the central control device 230, the valley brake control 200 and the direction track brake control 220 has, in addition to hardware components, such as corresponding processors and memory units, software components, such as program modules for simulating the running behavior of the processes 100, 101.

[0067] In Figure 2 The time-distance curves (ZWL) of processes 100, 101, and 102 are shown as examples. A simulation created according to the invention is presented. In each simulation, the complete process sequence of the three processes 100, 101, and 102 is calculated at least once in a single run (DL), and if necessary, at least partially multiple times (if corrections are required to bring the simulated solution closer to the desired optimum).

[0068] The x-axis represents the path x of the processes taking place. To better illustrate this, the flow profile is shown. Figure 1 in Figure 2 This is indicated again above the diagram. It clearly shows where the mountain peak BG and the track brakes 91, 60, 70-77 are located on the x-axis. Time t is represented on the z-axis. Therefore, the arrow for advancing time points downwards in the drawing.

[0069] To Figure 2To better illustrate this, the various calculated trumpets are numbered from T1 to T3. Trumpets T1 ... T3 each consist of the flow paths (ZWL) of the drainage channels. The flow path that defines the upper boundary of a trumpet in the diagram is defined by the first wheel of the drainage channel on the downhill side, and the flow path that defines the lower boundary of trumpets T1 ... T3 is defined by the last wheel of the drainage channel on the uphill side. Therefore, each flow path begins at the starting point AP of drainage channel 100, AP101 of drainage channel 101, and AP102 of drainage channel 102. Consequently, an imaginary connecting line between the starting points of the respective flow paths in the diagram always results in a horizontal line, since the first and last wheels of the respective drainage channel are located at different points x along the drainage path at the same time.

[0070] Due to uncertainties in the sequence planning, which are taken into account in the simulation, the trumpets T1 ... T3 widen further as the sequence progresses. Therefore, horizontal lines in the progressing trumpet T1 ... T3 would naturally result in a greater length than the actual length of, or more precisely, the actual length between the first and last wheel of the sequence in question (overhangs can be accounted for by larger safety margins, as already mentioned).

[0071] As the flow progresses, the area of ​​the flow path in which the first and last wheels of the respective flow are located increases, while the area of ​​the flow path between two successive flows that is reliably located between the flows decreases. This can be seen Figure 2This can be clearly seen in the simulation run DL shown, by examining the areas between the trumpets T1 ... T3 where barrier triangles SD are drawn. Therefore, for considering the simulation results with regard to preventing or allowing catch-up processes in successive runs, i.e., the antecedent and its corresponding follower, the areas between the trumpets T1 ... T3 are decisive.

[0072] The barrier triangles SD illustrate which dimensions must be considered. The barrier triangles SD are right-angled and have a horizontal side that corresponds precisely to the length of the track brake. This is because the first wheel of the trailing vehicle may only reach the track brake once the last wheel of the leading vehicle has released it. Therefore, the time during which the last wheel of the leading vehicle is still in the track brake must not be included in the time buffer between the adjacent trumpets T1 and T2 or T2 and T3 representing the leading and trailing vehicles (if the sequences are not to catch up). The horizontal line is therefore... Figure 2 with the length l91 of the mountain brake 91, the length l60 of the valley brake 60 and the length l70 of the direction track brake 70.

[0073] The vertical side of the triangle forms the time window ZF, during which there is reliably no operation in the relevant track brake. Considering the speed of the operations, this can be directly related to a required safety distance (speed multiplied by the time window yields the safety distance). Thus, with a required safety distance, there is also a critical time window ZFK between the respective leading and trailing wheels. Falling below this critical time window leads to a breach of the minimum required safety distance (if the operations are not intended to catch up) or, if deliberately breached, results in a catching-up process between the leading and trailing wheels (if a catching-up process between the relevant operations is acceptable or even desired). This is shown in Figure 2Each point is shown hatched and, in the simulation, determines the time intervals at which successive runs are initiated, or, in other words, the time interval t that the initiation points AP100, AP101, and AP102 must have in both cases. This time interval determines the throughput at the hump, because a train can be initiated at the hump summit more quickly the shorter these time intervals are between the initiation points. This clearly demonstrates that allowing catch-up operations can increase throughput.

[0074] For a consideration of the simulation results in such a way that catching up processes can be allowed in successive sequences, i.e. the precursor and the associated follower, the areas between the respective adjacent trumpets T1 ... T3 are therefore decisive, insofar as and as long as the trumpets belong to directly successive sequences (more on this below).

[0075] According to Figure 2 This is merely an example of a single DL run of the simulation. Assume that in Figure 2Let the same direction track be entered as the destination for both trains 101 and 102, so that their paths do not diverge and trains 101 and 102 pass through the same direction track brake 70. Train 101 can then utilize the full available time interval ZA at the direction track brake 70 in the valley brake 60 to enter it with a time delay, since a critical time interval does not need to be considered because, according to the invention, train 102, which is running as a trailing train, is allowed to overtake train 101, which is running as a leading train. Since the ZWL trumpets (determined as described in EP 4328112 A1) represent a set of possible ZWL, a potential overtaking maneuver can take place in the hatched overlap area UE.The overlap area UE clearly illustrates the potential inherent in the invention's ability to allow catch-up processes, because according to the prior art, the overlap area would have to be resolved at the expense of flow performance by pressing off the flow 102 later so that its ZWL trumpet could be in . Figure 2 shifts downwards until the overlap area disappears.

[0076] The resulting "delay" of trumpet T2 upon entering the directional track brake 70 by Δt3 is available to increase the shunting speed of shunt 101. The time gained by an impending loss of the minimum distance between trumpets T1 and T2 in the valley brake 60 is subsequently achieved by stronger braking of the coupled shunt 101 / 102. In other words, because shunt 101 is allowed to be overtaken by shunt 102 and can therefore be braked more strongly, optimization potential between shunts 100 and 101 can be exploited by shunting 101 earlier at a higher shunting speed (because the shunting locomotive accelerates between the shunting of shunts 100 and 101). The consequence is a reduction in shunting duration.This example illustrates that a "deformation" of the trumpets of two adjacent processes can also create optimization potential between two other consecutive processes (dynamic threading) if they are not allowed to catch up because they are running in different directions. However, this potential can only be fully exploited through a holistic consideration of the process and variations in the process simulation.

[0077] Furthermore, each solution found in this way must be subjected to an optimization of the push-off speed, which on the one hand takes into account the time intervals between the newly formed trumpets - for example, the time interval ZA between trumpet T1 and T2, which has so far been uncritical, can become the minimum time interval between the runs in the valley brake 60 and limit the temporal approximation (in this case, Δt3 cannot be fully exploited as a temporal optimization potential for the push-off duration) - and on the other hand takes into account the possible change in the push-off speeds between the runs, which is limited by the locomotive characteristics.

[0078] According to Figure 3Various velocity profiles (v) of the discharges over the discharge path (x) are shown. The values ​​in meters refer to the first wheel on the downstream side of the respective discharge. The values ​​in meters / s are absolute velocities within the discharge system. The values ​​in meters for x and in meters / s for v serve only as an example and can, of course, take on different values ​​in other discharge systems.

[0079] A first curve (1) shows the speed profile of the leading train. A second curve (2) shows the speed profile of the trailing train. Comparing the speed developments of the leading and trailing trains, it becomes apparent that the speed of the leading train is much slower than that of the trailing train over the first 150 m shown. In this example, the destination ZO of the leading train is assumed to be at the 150 m mark on the direction track.

[0080] Furthermore, it becomes clear that the speed of the leading trailer decreases significantly more slowly than that of the trailing trailer during the unwinding process. This means that, in this pair of unwinding operations, the leading trailer can be described as the "good runner" and the trailing trailer as the "poor runner." This is also the reason why the poorly runner trailing trailer is released from the track brake (not shown), which could, for example, be at 0 m, at a significantly higher speed than the well-running leading trailer, so that, according to the invention, a catching-up operation can take place on the open section of the unwinding path before the target location ZO.

[0081] Depending on the speed difference between the leading and trailing vehicles as they decelerate from the relevant track brake, the trailing vehicle will catch up with the leading vehicle earlier (with a larger speed difference) or later (with a smaller speed difference). However, other boundary conditions must also be considered when choosing these speed differences, which are also described in Figure 3The diagrams are shown. One boundary condition is that the speed of the coupled unit at the destination ZO, for example, must not exceed 1.5 m / s as the impact velocity on already stationary units. This is a constant and is represented by the third diagram 3. This impact velocity of, for example, 1.5 m / s is also assumed as the upper limit for the impact velocity between the leading and trailing units during coupling on the unit's path. This is represented by the fourth diagram 4, which represents the maximum permissible speed of the trailing unit upon impact with the leading unit and therefore maintains a constant distance of 1.5 m / s from the first diagram 1.

[0082] For the latter condition, it is from Figure 3It is readily apparent that the selected run-out speed for the trailing section, represented by the second curve 2, is lower than that of the fourth curve 4, and thus this condition can easily be met. However, to fulfill the first-mentioned condition, that the coupled sequence at the destination ZO does not exceed the required maximum speed of 1.5 m / s, the simulations already explained above are necessary. This simulation can predict this speed by calculating different variants that differ in the speed difference between the leading and trailing sections and consequently require different coupling points KP, of which... Figure 3 One example is shown at 35 m.

[0083] For each speed difference (relative speed) resulting from variations in the run-out speeds of the leading and trailing elements from the track brake, a coupling point KP can be calculated. From the speeds and masses of the elements, a total momentum is also derived, which can be used to simulate the motion of the coupled element. In this way, the speed that the coupled element is expected to have at the destination ZO can be calculated. The sum of the speeds calculated as a function of the coupling point is then represented as the fifth curve 5 in Figure 3This fifth path, 5, intersects the third path, 3, at 70 m. This means that before reaching this intersection point, the fifth path, 5, is at or below the maximum permissible speed at the destination, ZO, and consequently, these coupling points, KP, are permissible. However, in this example, coupling points KP further along the process path would result in speeds exceeding the required maximum speed according to the first path, 1. Therefore, a process window, PF, is defined for the theoretically achievable permissible coupling points, KP. The process speeds must be selected such that the coupling point KP lies within this process window, PF. To compensate for calculation inaccuracies, it can also be required that the selected coupling point KP does not lie in the boundary regions of the process window, PF.These marginal areas can, for example, be between 10% and 25% of the width of the process window PF.

[0084] In Figure 4 The process is schematically represented as a block diagram. The process flow is divided into three sub-processes: one for measurement (MS), one for simulation of the process (SI), and one for control of the process (ST). These sub-processes can run on one computer or on multiple computers. For example, the control sub-process (ST) can be performed on a brake control unit, and the simulation sub-process on a central computer with sufficient processing power for fast simulations. The measurement sub-process (MS) can also be computer-assisted, or the measured values ​​can be directly transmitted to the control unit, which then executes the control sub-process (ST).

[0085] In the example according to Figure 4 All sub-processes are started initially. The processes within the individual sub-processes are arranged horizontally to largely reflect the overall timeline of the process, in order to better illustrate how the sub-processes interact. Since recursion loops are also used, the horizontal arrangement is intended only as a rough guide.

[0086] In the SI simulation sub-process, process data for a train with unloaded unloading sequences A_DAT are first read in. Then, using this data and existing data describing the unloading system, a process simulation is performed in a first run as the simulation step of the unloading process A_SIM. From this process simulation, control data for the track brake control ST_DAT can be calculated and output to the ST control sub-process. This is already running when the process simulations are performed during the unloading of a dismantling unit in further runs (DL according to Figure 2 ) is repeated with updated sensor data.

[0087] In the control sub-process, after reading the control data ST_DAT, the hump yard is controlled in a control step ST_A for the track brakes (and optionally also for points and other components of the hump yard) in such a way that, taking into account the specifications determined in the simulation step A_SIM, a sequence control with controlled catch-up operations of shunts with destinations on the same direction track can take place. In contrast, shunts with destinations on different direction tracks must not catch up and are controlled as described, for example, in EP 4328113 A1. In a subsequent query step for the end of the process, the system checks for the end of the shunt process. If this has been reached, the process is stopped. Otherwise, the process is repeated by reading new control data ST_DAT.

[0088] After the measurement sub-process is started, the process properties of the passing processes are measured sequentially in a measurement step for the process properties MS_A. The collected measurement data MS_DAT is then output and read into the simulation sub-process. In the simulation sub-process SI, a query is also performed to determine whether the process has reached its end. This occurs only if no further measurement data is to be read, leading to the termination of the process. Otherwise, the simulation step of the process A_SIM is repeated for all processes under consideration using updated measurement data MS_DAT.

[0089] The sub-procedure for measurement MS is carried out until all processes to be considered (measuring devices according to Figure 1For example, if steps MST, AZ1, AZ2, AZ3 have passed, then a query step for the procedure regarding the end of STP? will cause the procedure to be stopped. Otherwise, another measurement step MS_A will be performed for a process. Reference symbol list

[0090] 10 Unloading system 20 Unloading ramp 30 Intermediate incline 40 Distribution zone 80 ... 86 Distribution switches 50 ... 57 Directional tracks 90, 91 Hill brakes 60, 61 Valley brakes 70 ... 77 Directional track brakes 100 ... 102 Unloading 110 Push-off locomotive 200 Valley brake control 250 Hill brake control 220 Directional track brake control 230 Central control device 211, 221, 231, 233, 241, 251 Interface BG Mountain summit AP Push-off point BB Mountain brake section TBT Valley brake section RGB Directional track brake section MST Measuring station AZ1 ... AZ3 Axle counter t Time x Travel distance TW Separating switch l 100 ... l 102 Length of a run l 60 l 70 l 91 Length of a track brake ZWL Time-distance line T1 ... T3 ZWL Trumpet SDS Locking triangle ZA Time interval ZAK Critical time interval UE Overlap area Δt1 ... Δt2 Time saving 1. First path 2. Second path 3. Third path 4. Fourth path 5. Fifth path KP Coupling point PF Process window RUR Computing environment ZO Destination

Claims

1. Method for computer-aided control of the running of processes in a shunting system, in which, in order to control the running speed of processes running on a shunting path to a destination (D) in the shunting system, the running speed is reduced while passing track brakes located in the shunting path of the respective process, characterized by the fact that for at least one directly consecutive pair of processes, of which the first process is the precursor and the following process is the follower, a) the speeds of the precursor and the follower are controlled by computer such that the follower catches up with the precursor at a coupling point before its destination, b) the follower and the precursor are automatically coupled as soon as these two processes meet.

2. Method according to claim 1, characterized by the fact thatc) it is checked whether the leading and trailing vehicles have their destination (ZO) in the same direction track, d) in the event that the leading and trailing vehicles do not have their destination (ZO) in the same direction track, the running speeds of these two runs are controlled such that the trailing vehicle does not overtake the leading vehicle on a common section of their running path, e) and in the event that the leading and trailing vehicles have their destination (ZO) in the same direction track, steps a) and b) according to claim 1 are carried out.

3. Method according to claim 2, characterized by the fact thatf) in case e) according to claim 2, it is checked whether the two sequences exhibit similar or the same acceleration behavior on the sequence path within a predetermined bandwidth, g) in case the two sequences exhibit similar or the same acceleration behavior within the predetermined bandwidth, the sequence speed of the two sequences is controlled such that the trailing sequence only catches up with the leading sequence on their common sequence path at the destination (ZO), h) and in case the two sequences do not exhibit similar or the same acceleration behavior within the predetermined bandwidth, steps a) and b) according to claim 1 are carried out.

4. Method according to claim 3, characterized by the fact thati) in case h) according to claim 3, it is determined which of the two processes is a good runner and which of the two processes is a bad runner, j) in case the forerunner is the good runner and the trailing runner is the bad runner, the good runner is slowed down so much that the bad runner catches up with the good runner before the finish line, k) and in case the forerunner is the bad runner and the trailing runner is the good runner, the good runner is slowed down so little that the good runner catches up with the bad runner before the finish line.

5. Method according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized by the fact that the relative speed between the trailing and leading vehicles at the time of collision does not exceed a predetermined limit.

6. Method according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized by the fact thatin the event of a required emergency stop of the shunting system l) regardless of a realizable relative speed between trailing and leading at the point of contact, steps a) and b) according to claim 1 are carried out, m) the coupled shunt is braked in a track brake located on the remaining shunting path.

7. Method according to any of the preceding claims, characterized by the fact that To determine the control parameters of the track brakes, a computer-aided simulation of the processes in the shunting system is carried out.

8. Method according to claim 7, which refers back to claim 6, characterized by the fact thatIn the simulation, n) a time-distance curve is calculated for the precursor and the trailing vehicle, o) potential coupling locations along the time-distance curve are calculated, taking into account the running resistance of the precursor and the trailing vehicle as well as the limit value for the relative velocity, wherein these coupling locations lie within a permissible section for coupling locations on the runway. p) a potential coupling location is selected and step a) according to claim 1 is carried out such that the trailing vehicle catches up with the precursor at this selected coupling location.

9. Method according to claim 8, characterized by the fact that q) a time-distance curve of the coupled sequence is calculated for a multitude of potential coupling locations in the permissible range, r) the potential coupling location is selected whose associated time-distance curve achieves the earliest possible time of termination of all sequences.

10. Method according to any of the foregoing claims, characterized by the fact that After coupling two processes before their destination, at least one leading and / or one trailing process of the coupled process, preferably all processes of a dismantling unit pushed off by a pusher locomotive, are taken into account.

11. Computing environment for controlling the processes of a processing plant characterized by the fact that this is set up to perform at least step a) according to any one of claims 1 - 10.

12. Computer program product containing program instructions that can be executed by a computing environment (RU) such that at least step a) of the method according to any one of claims 1 - 10 is executed.

13. Computer-readable storage medium containing data which are stored as data records on the storage medium, such that the data records make the computer program product according to the last preceding claim executable.

Images