Repair plan support system and repair plan support program

Abstract

To provide a repair plan support system which facilitates repair planning of building facilities provided in a building.SOLUTION: The repair plan support system includes: a diagnosis result acquisition unit (2) which acquires diagnosis results relating to a plurality of prescribed diagnostic items determined for each building facility to be evaluated; a deterioration state analysis unit (4) which, with respect to each building facility, calculates a first degree of deterioration recoverable by repair and a second degree of deterioration unrecoverable by repair on the basis of the diagnosis results relating to the diagnostic items of each building facility acquired by the diagnosis result acquisition unit and evaluates a state of each building facility on the basis of a relation between the first degree of deterioration and the second degree of deterioration; and a result output unit (6) which, with respect to each building facility to be evaluated, outputs a countermeasure priority level indicating a degree of necessity of a countermeasure and an update recommendation level indicating a recommendation degree of update of the building facility, which are calculated by the deterioration state analysis unit.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a repair plan support system and program, and more particularly to a repair plan support system and program that support the creation of repair plans for building facilities installed in buildings. [Background technology]

[0002] Japanese Patent Laid-Open Publication No. 2009-265782 (Patent Document 1) describes a building equipment repair proposal evaluation system. In this repair proposal evaluation system, the degree of deterioration of a building and its equipment is evaluated for each item based on the diagnosis results, and the evaluation is quantified and input by a diagnosis result input means. Furthermore, the degree of importance that the building owner attaches to repairs is estimated for each item, and the importance input means quantifies and inputs the evaluation. Then, based on the numerical values ​​input by the diagnosis result input means and the numerical values ​​input by the importance input means, a priority item evaluation means evaluates the items that are of high priority to the building owner. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2009-265782 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] In the repair proposal evaluation system described in Patent Document 1, the degree of deterioration of a building and its facilities is quantified and input by a diagnosis result input means, while the degree of importance that the building owner attaches to repairs is quantified and input by an importance input means, and items that are of high priority to the building owner are evaluated by a priority item evaluation means. However, because the evaluation by the priority item evaluation means of the repair proposal evaluation system described in Patent Document 1 simply indicates the priority of repairs, there is a problem in that the building owner who is presented with the evaluation by the priority item evaluation means cannot understand how the building and facilities should be repaired.

[0005] In other words, when repairing buildings and facilities, there are cases where it is desirable to repair deteriorated facilities, etc., and cases where it is desirable to update (replace) facilities, etc. with new ones without repairing them. For this reason, even if the priority of repairs is presented through the evaluation, the building owner, etc. must separately consider how to deal with deteriorated facilities, which creates the problem of taking time to create repair plans and estimate repair costs.

[0006] Furthermore, because the evaluation presented by the repair proposal evaluation system described in Patent Document 1 is an evaluation for each facility, it is not possible to determine which systems within the facility require repairs, and it takes time to create a repair plan and estimate repair costs. For example, if an air conditioning facility is evaluated as having a high priority for repair, it is not possible to determine whether the entire facility should be repaired or replaced, or whether repairing only some of the systems within the facility will be sufficient, and it takes time to create a repair plan and estimate repair costs.

[0007] Therefore, an object of the present invention is to provide a repair plan support system and a repair plan support program that can easily create repair plans for building equipment installed in buildings. [Means for solving the problem]

[0008] In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, the present invention is a repair plan support system that supports the creation of repair plans for building equipment installed in buildings, and is characterized by having: a diagnostic result acquisition unit that acquires diagnostic results for a predetermined number of diagnostic items defined for each building equipment to be evaluated; a deterioration state analysis unit that calculates, for each building equipment, a first deterioration level that can be addressed by repair and a second deterioration level that cannot be addressed by repair based on the diagnostic results for each diagnostic item of each building equipment acquired by the diagnostic result acquisition unit, and evaluates the state of each building equipment based on the relationship between the first deterioration level and the second deterioration level; and a result output unit that outputs, for each building equipment to be evaluated, a response priority that indicates the degree of necessity for response and a recommendation level for update that indicates the degree to which equipment update is recommended, calculated by the deterioration state analysis unit.

[0009] According to the present invention configured in this way, for each piece of building equipment to be evaluated, the result output unit outputs a response priority indicating the degree of need for response and a renewal recommendation level indicating the degree to which equipment renewal is recommended, so that the user can easily create a building equipment repair plan by referring to the results output by the result output unit. Also, since the deterioration state analysis unit evaluates the condition of each piece of building equipment based on the relationship between the first deterioration level that can be addressed by repair and the second deterioration level that cannot be addressed by repair, the need for repair or renewal of building equipment can be accurately evaluated.

[0010] In the present invention, the diagnostic result acquisition unit is preferably configured to be able to input a data file recording the results of daily inspections of at least some of the building equipment to be evaluated, and acquires the data from the input data file as the diagnostic result for the diagnostic item linked to that data.

[0011] According to the present invention configured in this way, the diagnostic result acquisition unit is configured to be able to input a data file recording the results of daily inspections of building equipment, and the data in the input data file can be acquired as the diagnostic results for the diagnostic items linked to that data. As a result, the daily inspection data recorded on a daily basis can be used to create repair plans for building equipment, significantly reducing the effort required for data input.

[0012] In the present invention, the deterioration state analysis unit is preferably configured to calculate the response priority by multiplying the first deterioration level and the second deterioration level by the importance coefficient of the building equipment to be evaluated, and the importance coefficient is set based on the impact of the building equipment on business continuity and / or whether or not there is a backup for the building equipment.

[0013] According to the present invention configured in this manner, the deterioration state analysis unit calculates the response priority by multiplying an importance coefficient set based on the impact of the building equipment on business continuity and / or whether or not there is a backup, so that an accurate response priority can be calculated taking into account the impact on business continuity, etc.

[0014] In the present invention, preferably, the deterioration state analysis unit calculates the renewal recommendation level by assigning a weight based on the maintenance cost of the building equipment and / or a weight based on the energy-saving properties of the building equipment to the second deterioration level.

[0015] According to the present invention configured in this manner, the deterioration state analysis unit calculates the renewal recommendation level by assigning a weight based on the maintenance cost of the building equipment and / or a weight based on the energy saving properties, so that an accurate renewal recommendation level can be calculated taking into account the maintenance cost, etc.

[0016] In the present invention, preferably, the deterioration state analysis unit identifies a position on a map for each building facility to be evaluated, with the first deterioration level as the first parameter and the second deterioration level as the second parameter, and evaluates the deterioration state based on the position of the building facility on the map.

[0017] According to the present invention configured in this manner, the deterioration state analysis unit evaluates the deterioration state on a map using the first deterioration level and the second deterioration level as parameters, so that the deterioration state can be evaluated taking into account the first deterioration level and the second deterioration level accurately.

[0018] In the present invention, the result output unit is preferably further configured to output a response priority indicating the order of priority of the response for each piece of building equipment to be evaluated.

[0019] According to the present invention configured in this manner, the result output unit outputs the response priority for each piece of building equipment to be evaluated, allowing the user to intuitively determine which building equipment should be prioritized for response, making it easy to create repair plans for building equipment.

[0020] The present invention also provides a repair plan support program that supports the creation of repair plans for building equipment installed in a building, and is characterized by having a computer function as: a diagnostic result acquisition unit that acquires diagnostic results for a predetermined number of diagnostic items defined for each building equipment to be evaluated; a deterioration state analysis unit that calculates, for each building equipment, a first deterioration level that can be addressed by repair and a second deterioration level that cannot be addressed by repair based on the diagnostic results for each diagnostic item of each building equipment acquired by the diagnostic result acquisition unit, and evaluates the state of each building equipment based on the relationship between the first deterioration level and the second deterioration level; and a result output unit that outputs, for each building equipment to be evaluated, a response priority that indicates the degree of necessity for response and a renewal recommendation level that indicates the degree to which equipment renewal is recommended, calculated by the deterioration state analysis unit. [Effects of the Invention]

[0021] According to the repair plan support system and repair plan support program of the present invention, repair plans for building equipment installed in a building can be easily created. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0022] [Figure 1] 1 is a block diagram showing a configuration of a repair plan support system according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 2] 1 is a flowchart showing processing by a repair plan support system according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 3] 3 is a diagram showing an example of a diagnosis item acquired by a diagnosis result acquisition unit in the repair plan support system according to the embodiment of the present invention. FIG. [Figure 4] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of linking between daily inspections and diagnosis items in the repair plan support system according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 5] FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an example of classification of diagnosis items related to a first deterioration level and diagnosis items related to a second deterioration level in the repair plan support system according to the embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 6] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an example of a map plotting the deterioration state of each building facility to be evaluated in a repair plan support system according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 7] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of response priorities calculated based on the degree of deterioration of each piece of building equipment to be evaluated in a repair plan support system according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 8] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of a procedure for calculating a renewal recommendation level in the repair plan support system according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 9] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of a response priority and an update recommendation level displayed on a display by a result output unit in the repair plan support system according to an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0023] Next, a repair plan support system according to an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the accompanying drawings. FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the configuration of a repair plan support system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0024] As shown in Figure 1, a repair plan support system 1 according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a diagnosis result acquisition unit 2 that acquires diagnosis results for each piece of building equipment to be evaluated, a deterioration state analysis unit 4 that evaluates the condition of each piece of building equipment based on the acquired diagnosis results, and a result output unit 6 that outputs a response priority and an update recommendation level for each piece of building equipment. This repair plan support system 1 is configured to support building managers and others in creating repair plans for building equipment.

[0025] Specifically, the repair plan support system 1 of this embodiment is configured by installing a repair plan support program according to an embodiment of the present invention in a computer 8, causing the computer 8 to function as a diagnosis result acquisition unit 2, a deterioration state analysis unit 4, and a result output unit 6. The computer 8 is also configured, for example, by a microprocessor, memory, an interface circuit, a display, and software for operating these components. The repair plan support system 1 of this embodiment can also be configured by installing the repair plan support program in a server on a computer network, and can be operated from a terminal connected to the server.

[0026] The diagnostic result acquisition unit 2 is configured to acquire diagnostic results for a predetermined number of diagnostic items determined for each piece of building equipment to be evaluated. The diagnostic result acquisition unit 2 is configured so that a user can input diagnostic results for the diagnostic items using a keyboard 10 of the computer 8. Furthermore, in this embodiment, the diagnostic result acquisition unit 2 is configured to be able to input diagnostic results for at least some of the diagnostic items from a data file stored in an external storage device 12 such as a hard disk.

[0027] That is, for many of the building equipment installed in buildings, daily inspections are carried out to periodically check their condition. By acquiring data from a data file that records the results of these daily inspections, it is possible to input diagnostic results, thereby reducing the labor required for input work. As will be described later, the data from the input data file is acquired by the repair plan support system 1 as the diagnostic results for the diagnostic items linked to that data.

[0028] The deterioration state analysis unit 4 is configured to evaluate the state of each piece of building equipment based on the diagnosis results of each diagnosis item of each piece of building equipment acquired by the diagnosis result acquisition unit 2. That is, the deterioration state analysis unit 4 uses the diagnosis results of each diagnosis item to calculate, for each piece of building equipment, a first deterioration level that can be addressed by repair and a second deterioration level that cannot be addressed by repair. Then, it is configured to evaluate the state of each piece of building equipment based on the relationship between the first deterioration level and the second deterioration level. The specific evaluation of the state of each piece of building equipment will be described later.

[0029] The result output unit 6 is configured to output the response priority and update recommendation level calculated by the deterioration state analysis unit 4 for each building equipment to be evaluated. The response priority is an index showing the degree of necessity for response such as repair for that building equipment, and the update recommendation level is an index showing the degree to which updating of that building equipment is recommended. The result output unit 6 may display the response priority and update recommendation level on the display 14 of the computer 8, or may print them out on the printer 16. Alternatively, the result output unit 6 may output a document file or the like containing the response priority and update recommendation level to the external storage device 12.

[0030] Next, specific processing by the repair plan support system 1 according to the embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to FIGS. 2 is a flowchart showing the processing by the repair plan support system 1 according to the embodiment of the present invention. Each processing in this flowchart is executed by a computer on which a repair plan support program according to the embodiment of the present invention is installed.

[0031] First, in step S1 of Fig. 2, diagnostic results for a plurality of predetermined diagnostic items defined for each piece of building equipment to be evaluated are acquired by the diagnostic result acquisition unit 2. In this embodiment, the diagnostic results for each diagnostic item defined by the Building and Equipment Long-life Association (BELCA), a public interest incorporated association, are acquired by the diagnostic result acquisition unit 2. However, the diagnostic items are not limited to these, and can be set appropriately depending on the building to which they are applied, etc.

[0032] FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of diagnostic items acquired by the diagnostic result acquisition unit 2 in the repair plan support system 1 according to an embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 3, for example, the drain of an air conditioning system has diagnostic items such as aging, water leakage, and piping / piping joints, and the refrigerant pipe has diagnostic items such as aging, piping / piping joints, etc. The diagnostic items shown in FIG. 3 are examples of diagnostic items defined by BELCA, but the diagnostic items can be changed as appropriate. As a judgment for these diagnostic items, the user inputs a diagnostic result with a "○ (circle)" or an "× (cross)," and the diagnostic result is acquired by the diagnostic result acquisition unit 2. In the example shown in FIG. 3, an "×" is entered as the judgment for the diagnostic item "drain aging" because the drain is not within its useful life, and an "×" is entered for the diagnostic item "drain leakage" because there is a risk of water leakage from the drain. In BELCA, the diagnostic result of "no problem" is represented as "0" and "problem" is represented as "1", but in the following explanation, these are represented as "○" and "×" respectively to make it easier to understand intuitively.

[0033] In this way, in the repair plan support system 1 of this embodiment, the judgment results for each diagnostic item are input as "○", "×", etc., so that the judgment results are less likely to vary for each user conducting the survey compared to when the judgment results are input in multiple stages, making it easier to perform quantitative evaluations. Furthermore, in the repair plan support system 1 of this embodiment, the judgment for each diagnostic item is made for each system, so the need for repairs can be evaluated for each system. For example, when evaluating air conditioning equipment, the repair plan support system 1 of this embodiment does not make a judgment for the entire air conditioning equipment installed in the building, but rather makes a judgment for each system of the air conditioning equipment. Therefore, it is easy to understand which system of the air conditioning equipment has a problem, and a repair plan can be easily created.

[0034] However, for example, if the judgment results for each diagnostic item for air conditioning equipment were to be input for each system, the number of items for which judgment results must be input would become enormous, making the task of inputting the judgment results cumbersome for the user. Therefore, in the repair plan support system 1 of this embodiment, in step S1 of the flowchart shown in Figure 2, a data file recording the results of daily inspections of at least some of the building equipment to be evaluated is acquired as the diagnostic results of the diagnostic items by the diagnostic result acquisition unit 2. Then, the data in the input data file is acquired as the diagnostic results of the diagnostic items linked to that data.

[0035] FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of the association between daily inspections and diagnosis items in the repair plan support system 1 according to the embodiment of the present invention. Generally, building facilities such as air conditioning facilities are inspected periodically and the inspection results are recorded. In the repair plan support system 1 of this embodiment, the inspection results of the daily inspection are acquired as the diagnosis results of the diagnosis items by importing the inspection results of the daily inspection as a data file by the diagnosis result acquisition unit 2.

[0036] In the example shown in Figure 4, the "year of installation" information written on the inspection sheet for daily inspections is linked to the "age" diagnostic item for the air conditioning equipment drain and the "age" diagnostic item for the refrigerant pipe. As shown in Figure 4, the drain of the air conditioning equipment installed in 2000 has exceeded its useful life, so the "age" diagnostic item for the drain is judged as "x". On the other hand, the refrigerant pipe, although installed in 2000, has not exceeded its useful life, so the "age" diagnostic item for the refrigerant pipe is judged as "o". In other words, the age of the air conditioning equipment is calculated from the "year of installation" and the current time, and it is determined whether or not it has exceeded its useful life.

[0037] Furthermore, in the example shown in Figure 4, the drain on the inspection sheet The inspection results of TIFF2025139714000002.tif6170 are linked to the drain diagnostic item "Piping and pipe fittings," and "No significant rust, no water leakage" is judged as "○." Also, the inspection sheet for freon leakage The inspection results for TIFF2025139714000003.tif6170 are linked to the refrigerant pipe diagnostic item "Piping and pipe fittings," and "No gas leaks, no significant external corrosion" is judged as "○." In this way, each inspection result in the inspection sheet is linked to the corresponding diagnostic item and used as the diagnostic item's judgment result.

[0038] Next, in step S2 of the flowchart shown in Fig. 2, the diagnostic items acquired in step S1 are classified into items related to the first deterioration level and items related to the second deterioration level. Fig. 5 is a diagram showing an example of classification of diagnostic items related to the first deterioration level and diagnostic items related to the second deterioration level in the repair plan support system 1 according to an embodiment of the present invention. In the example shown in Fig. 5, the BELCA diagnostic item "physical deterioration" is classified as a diagnostic item related to the first deterioration level, and "repair history" and "useful life" of the diagnostic item "physical deterioration" are classified as diagnostic items related to the second deterioration level.

[0039] Furthermore, among the diagnostic items under "Business Environment Functions," "Environmental Elements" and "Noise and Vibration" are classified as the first level of deterioration, and "Power Outage Response" is classified as the second level of deterioration. Among the diagnostic items under "Maintenance Environment Functions," "Reliability" is classified as the first level of deterioration, and "Operability," "Parts Procurement," and "Ease of Repair" are classified as the second level of deterioration. Furthermore, among the diagnostic items under "Safety Functions," "Earthquake Resistance" is classified as the first level of deterioration. In this way, diagnostic items that can be addressed by repair are classified as the first level of deterioration, and diagnostic items that cannot be addressed by repair but can be addressed by updating are classified as the second level of deterioration.

[0040] In this embodiment, among the diagnostic items of BELCA illustrated in FIG. 5, "space saving," "impact of failure," and "energy saving (regarding method)" are not included in the degradation evaluation, are not classified into either the first or second degradation level, and are not used in calculating the degradation level.

[0041] Next, in step S3 of the flowchart in FIG. 2, the degradation state analysis unit 4 calculates a first degradation level and a second degradation level based on the classification in step S2. In this embodiment, first, the deterioration evaluation score Pm for each device or the like is calculated by the following equation. TIFF2025139714000004.tif15170 In formula (1), Pi corresponds to "○" or "×" for each of the above-mentioned diagnostic items, with Pi=0 being substituted for "○" and Pi=1 being substituted for "×". Furthermore, weight Ci is a weight set according to the importance of that diagnostic item for that device, with a large value being set for a diagnostic item of high importance and a small value being set for a diagnostic item of low importance. Using formula (1), the deterioration evaluation score Pm for each device, etc. is calculated in the numerical range of 0 to 1.

[0042] Note that, using formula (1), it is possible to calculate the evaluation score Pm1 for the first deterioration level and the evaluation score Pm2 for the second deterioration level for each device, etc. That is, when calculating the evaluation score Pm1 for the first deterioration level, the weights Ci by which the diagnostic items classified as the second deterioration level are multiplied are set to "0," and when calculating the evaluation score Pm2 for the second deterioration level, the weights Ci by which the diagnostic items related to the first deterioration level are multiplied are set to "0." In this way, it is possible to calculate the evaluation score Pm1 for the first deterioration level and the evaluation score Pm2 for the second deterioration level for each device using the above formula (1).

[0043] Next, based on the deterioration evaluation score Pm for each piece of equipment, etc. calculated using formula (1), the evaluation score Pss for the building equipment composed of those pieces of equipment (e.g., equivalent to "one system" in an air conditioning system) is calculated using formula (2). TIFF2025139714000005.tif15170The weight Bi is set according to the importance of the equipment, etc. in the building facility, with a large value being set for equipment, etc. of greater importance, and a small value being set for equipment, etc. of lesser importance.The deterioration evaluation score Pss for each building facility is calculated using this formula (2).

[0044] Using formula (2), it is possible to calculate the evaluation score Pss1 for the first deterioration level and the evaluation score Pss2 for the second deterioration level for each piece of building equipment. That is, when calculating the evaluation score Pss1 for the first deterioration level, the weights Bi by which the evaluation score Pm2 is multiplied are set to "0," and when calculating the evaluation score Pss2 for the second deterioration level, the weights Bi by which the evaluation score Pm1 is multiplied are set to "0." In this way, it is possible to calculate the evaluation score Pss1 for the first deterioration level and the evaluation score Pss2 for the second deterioration level for each piece of building equipment using formula (2) above.

[0045] Furthermore, based on the deterioration evaluation scores Pss1 and Pss2 for each piece of building equipment calculated by formula (2), the first deterioration level [%] and the second deterioration level [%] are calculated by formula (3). TIFF2025139714000006.tif16170Here, the worst evaluation score for a building facility in formula (3) is the value calculated when the evaluation score Pm = 1 (most deteriorated state) for all equipment included in that building facility. Therefore, the evaluation score Pss value for each building facility will always be equal to or less than the worst evaluation score, and the first deterioration level [%] and second deterioration level [%] will each take values ​​between 0 and 100%. Note that the calculation of the first and second deterioration levels using formulas (1) to (3) above utilizes the calculation method used in BELCA as an example, but the first and second deterioration levels can also be calculated by modifying this as appropriate or by setting up a unique calculation formula.

[0046] Next, in step S4 of the flowchart shown in Fig. 2, the first deterioration level and the second deterioration level calculated in step S3 are mapped. Fig. 6 is a diagram showing an example of a map on which the deterioration state of each building facility to be evaluated is plotted in the repair plan support system 1 according to an embodiment of the present invention. As shown in Fig. 6, in this embodiment, the location of each piece of building equipment to be evaluated is specified on a map with the first deterioration level as the first parameter on the vertical axis and the second deterioration level as the second parameter on the horizontal axis. The deterioration state analysis unit 4 is configured to evaluate the deterioration state based on the location of the building equipment on this map.

[0047] Specifically, the map shown in Figure 6 is divided into a first area A1, which is an area where the first deterioration level is 20% or less and the second deterioration level is 50% or less, a second area A2 outside this first area, which is an area where the sum of the first deterioration level [%] and the second deterioration level [%] is 80 or less, and a third area A3, which is an area where the sum of the first deterioration level [%] and the second deterioration level [%] is greater than 80. On this map, the deterioration state of building equipment located within the first area A1 is judged to be "low," the deterioration state of building equipment located within the second area A2 is judged to be "medium," and the deterioration state of building equipment located within the third area A3 is judged to be "high."

[0048] In this way, by identifying the location of each piece of building equipment to be evaluated on a map with the first deterioration level as the first parameter and the second deterioration level as the second parameter, the deterioration state of the building equipment can be evaluated by accurately taking into account deterioration that can be addressed by repair and deterioration that cannot be addressed by repair. For example, even if the deterioration that cannot be addressed by repair (second deterioration level), such as the service life, is relatively large, if the deterioration that can be addressed by repair (first deterioration level) is small (first area A1), the building equipment's deterioration state can be evaluated as low. Furthermore, even if the second deterioration level is relatively small, if the first deterioration level is relatively large (second area A2), the building equipment's deterioration state can be evaluated as medium. Furthermore, if either the first deterioration level or the second deterioration level is very large, or if both the first deterioration level and the second deterioration level are relatively large (third area A3), the building equipment's deterioration state can be evaluated as high.

[0049] In the example shown in FIG. 6 , equipment 1 with a first deterioration level of 60% and a second deterioration level of 40% is located in the third area A3 and is judged to be in a "high" deterioration state. Equipment 2 with a first deterioration level of 40% and a second deterioration level of 20%, equipment 3 with a first deterioration level of 30% and a second deterioration level of 30%, and equipment 4 with a first deterioration level of 0% and a second deterioration level of 55% are located in the second area A2 and are judged to be in a "medium" deterioration state. Equipment 5 with a first deterioration level of 10% and a second deterioration level of 10% is located in the first area A1 and is judged to be in a "low" deterioration state. In this way, in the repair planning support system 1 of this embodiment, the deterioration state analysis unit 4 evaluates the condition of each building facility based on the relationship between the first and second deterioration levels.

[0050] Next, in step S5 of the flowchart shown in FIG. 2, the importance coefficient Ki is obtained. The importance coefficient Ki is a coefficient that is set in advance based on the impact of the building equipment on business continuity and whether or not the building equipment has a backup. For example, the importance coefficient Ki of building equipment that would make business continuity difficult if it broke down and stopped working can be set to a large value. On the other hand, the importance coefficient Ki of building equipment that has a backup and can continue business even if it breaks down and stops working by replacing it with the backup equipment can be set to a relatively small value.

[0051] In this embodiment, the importance coefficient Ki is set to a value on a 10-level scale between 1.0 and 1.9. The importance coefficient Ki can be set appropriately according to the importance of the facility recognized by the facility manager, and can be set to any value. In the example shown in Fig. 6, the importance coefficient Ki is set to 1.1 for facility 1, 1.2 for facility 2, 1.0 for facilities 3 and 4, and 1.2 for facility 5.

[0052] Next, in step S6 of the flowchart shown in Fig. 2, the response priority is calculated by the deterioration state analysis unit 4. Fig. 7 is a diagram showing an example of the response priority calculated based on the degree of deterioration of each piece of building equipment to be evaluated in the repair plan support system 1 according to an embodiment of the present invention. The response priority is a numerical value indicating the degree of necessity for response, and is calculated by multiplying the first and second deterioration degrees by the importance coefficient Ki of the building equipment to be evaluated. Specifically, in this embodiment, the response priority is calculated by multiplying the sum of the first and second deterioration degrees calculated in step S6 by the importance coefficient Ki set for that building equipment. The larger the response priority value, the greater the degree of necessity for response to deterioration, indicating that the equipment should be repaired with priority.

[0053] In the example shown in FIG. 7 , for facility 1, the sum of the first deterioration level (60) and the second deterioration level (40) is multiplied by the importance coefficient Ki=1.1 to calculate a response priority of 110. Similarly, for facility 2, the sum of the first deterioration level (40) and the second deterioration level (20) is multiplied by the importance coefficient Ki=1.2 to calculate a response priority of 72. For facility 3, the sum of the first deterioration level (30) and the second deterioration level (30) is multiplied by the importance coefficient Ki=1.0 to calculate a response priority of 60. For facility 4, the sum of the first deterioration level (0) and the second deterioration level (55) is multiplied by the importance coefficient Ki=1.0 to calculate a response priority of 55. On the other hand, for facility 5, although the importance coefficient Ki=1.2 is set, the deterioration state is determined to be "low." For building facilities with little deterioration, the risk of malfunction is sufficiently low that there is no need to increase the response priority, so the importance coefficient Ki=1.2 is corrected to Ki=1.0. As a result, the response priority for facility 5 is calculated as 20.

[0054] In this embodiment, the response priority is calculated by multiplying the sum of the first deterioration level [%] and the second deterioration level [%] by the importance coefficient Ki, so the response priority value may exceed 100. Alternatively, the response priority can be calculated in various ways using the first deterioration level, the second deterioration level, and the importance coefficient Ki, such as multiplying the average of the first deterioration level and the second deterioration level by the importance coefficient Ki.

[0055] Next, in step S7 of the flowchart shown in Fig. 2, the degradation state analysis unit 4 acquires a non-energy saving coefficient Ke and a maintenance cost coefficient Kc. The non-energy saving coefficient Ke is a coefficient that represents a weight based on the energy saving performance of the building equipment, and a larger value is set in advance for building equipment with lower energy saving performance. The maintenance cost coefficient Kc is a coefficient that represents a weight based on the maintenance cost of the building equipment, and a larger value is set in advance for building equipment with higher maintenance costs.

[0056] Energy conservation standards have been established for many building facilities under the Top Runner System, based on the Act on the Rational Use of Energy. Manufacturers of each facility equipment have been developing products to meet the established energy conservation standards, and the energy conservation performance of facility equipment has improved over the years. For example, in the field of commercial air conditioners, the energy conservation standards were revised in 2015, so equipment manufactured and sold after 2015 generally has higher energy conservation performance than equipment manufactured and sold before that date.

[0057] Therefore, in this embodiment, as an example, the non-energy saving coefficient Ke is set to 1.0 for air conditioning equipment installed after 2015, and 1.5 for air conditioning equipment installed before that, so that Ke is always set to a value equal to or greater than 1.0. In this way, the non-energy saving coefficient Ke is set to be large for equipment whose energy saving performance is inferior to the current societal standard due to revisions to energy saving standards, etc. Note that the non-energy saving coefficient Ke is a coefficient that takes into account whether the building equipment is superior to the current societal energy saving standard, and is not intended to take into account the degree of deterioration of the building equipment from its initial performance.

[0058] On the other hand, the maintenance cost coefficient Kc is a coefficient that represents the weight based on the maintenance costs of the building equipment. Generally, a budget is set for the maintenance of many building equipment. The maintenance cost coefficient Kc is calculated based on the ratio of the actual expenses spent on the maintenance of the equipment to the budget allocated for the maintenance of the equipment. For example, if the actual expenses incurred for the maintenance of the building equipment over the past three years are 150,000 yen and the total maintenance budget for the building equipment over the past three years is 100,000 yen, the maintenance cost coefficient Kc is calculated as 1.5 (= 15 / 10). On the other hand, if the total maintenance budget for the building equipment over the past three years is 100,000 yen but the actual maintenance costs for the past three years are less than that, the non-energy saving coefficient Ke is set to 1.0.

[0059] In this embodiment, the maintenance cost coefficient Kc will be greater than 1 if the actual maintenance costs for the building equipment over a certain period in the past were greater than the costs expected for the maintenance of that building equipment, and the greater the actual costs, the larger the value. On the other hand, if the actual maintenance costs for the building equipment over a certain period in the past were less than the costs expected for the maintenance of that building equipment, Kc is set to 1.0, and a value greater than or equal to 1.0 is always set.

[0060] Next, in step S8 of the flowchart shown in Fig. 2, the deterioration state analysis unit 4 calculates a renewal recommendation level based on the first and second deterioration levels, the non-energy saving coefficient Ke, and the maintenance cost coefficient Kc. This renewal recommendation level is a value indicating the degree to which equipment renewal is recommended. Fig. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a procedure for calculating the renewal recommendation level in the repair plan support system 1 according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0061] First, as shown on the left side of Fig. 8, an update recommendation boundary line T indicated by a dashed line is set on a map in which the vertical axis represents the first deterioration level and the horizontal axis represents the second deterioration level. In this embodiment, the update recommendation boundary line T is (1) In the region where the first deterioration level is ≧60, the second deterioration level is 0; (2) In the region where 60 > first deterioration level > 20, the second deterioration level = (-5 / 4) × first deterioration level + 75, (3) In the region where 20≧the first deterioration level, the second deterioration level=50 The area to the right of this recommended renewal boundary line T is the area where renewal of the equipment is recommended.

[0062] For example, when calculating the degree of recommendation for renewal of equipment whose first deterioration level value is A and whose second deterioration level value is B, the second deterioration level value B is weighted by multiplying it by the non-energy saving coefficient Ke and the maintenance cost coefficient Kc acquired in step S7 of the flowchart shown in Fig. 2. That is, the second deterioration level value B is weighted to B' using equation (4). B'=B×Ke×Kc (4) As a result, point (B, A) on the map shown on the left side of FIG. 8 is moved to point (B', A) on the map shown on the right side.

[0063] Next, it is calculated what level this moved point (B', A) is at within the region on the map where updating is recommended (the region to the right of the update recommendation boundary line T). That is, when the value of the first degradation level is A, the region where updating is recommended extends from the second degradation level = Bt to the second degradation level = 100 in the figure. The update recommendation level is a value that indicates where the weighted second degradation level value B' is located within this range. Specifically, the update recommendation level [%] is calculated using formula (5). Update recommendation level = (B'-Bt) / (100-Bt) × 100 (5)

[0064] For example, for a building facility with a first deterioration level A=40, a second deterioration level B=20, a non-energy saving coefficient Ke=1.5, and a maintenance cost coefficient Kc=2.5, the second deterioration level B is: B'=B×Ke×Kc=20×1.5×2.5=75 Then, for the first deterioration level A=40, Bt=(-5 / 4)×40+75=25 The update recommendation rate [%] is calculated as follows: Update recommendation level = (B'-Bt) / (100-Bt) x 100 =(75-25) / (100-25)×100=66.7 It is calculated as follows.

[0065] If the calculated update recommendation level is smaller than 0, it is corrected to 0, and if the calculated update recommendation level is larger than 100, it is corrected to 100. As a result, the update recommendation level is calculated as a numerical value between 0% and 100%.

[0066] Next, in step S9 of the flowchart shown in Fig. 2, the response priority and the update recommendation degree calculated by the deterioration state analysis unit 4 are displayed on the display 14 by the result output unit 6. Fig. 9 is a diagram showing an example of the response priority and the update recommendation degree displayed on the display 14 by the result output unit 6 in the repair plan support system 1 according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0067] In the example shown in Figure 9, the response priorities and recommended update levels calculated for equipment 1 to 5 installed in the building are displayed as bar graphs on the display 14 as the diagnosis results. Also, the building equipment is listed on the display 14 in descending order of response priority, and the response priority for each building equipment is shown as 1st to 5th. Furthermore, the display 14 indicates the deterioration state of each building equipment identified on the map (Figure 6) in step S5 as "high," "medium," or "low." In addition, the display 14 displays the recommended treatment for each building equipment.

[0068] In the example shown in Figure 9, for equipment 1, the response priority is 110, the update recommendation is 70%, the response priority is "1st," and the deterioration state is "high," so the recommended action is to consider updating. Furthermore, for equipment 2, the response priority is 72, the update recommendation is 0%, the response priority is "2nd," and the deterioration state is "medium," so the recommended action is to perform repair. Furthermore, for equipment 3, the response priority is 60, the update recommendation is 50%, the response priority is "3rd," and the deterioration state is "medium," so the recommended action is to consider updating. Furthermore, for equipment 4, the response priority is 55, the update recommendation is 0%, the response priority is "4th," and the deterioration state is "medium," so the recommended action is to perform repair. Furthermore, for equipment 5, the response priority is 20, the update recommendation is 0%, the response priority is "5th," and the deterioration state is "low," so no action is required.

[0069] By referring to these displayed contents, the user can easily understand which building equipment in the building should be repaired as a priority. Furthermore, when repairing building equipment, the user can easily determine whether the equipment should be repaired or updated (replaced). For example, the user can understand that although equipment 2 has a relatively high priority, it should be repaired rather than updated. On the other hand, although equipment 3 does not have a very high priority, the user can understand that if repair is to be performed, it should be updated rather than repaired. In this way, the repair plan support system 1 of this embodiment allows the user to accurately determine what measures should be taken depending on the deterioration status of each building equipment, and can easily create a repair plan.

[0070] Furthermore, the result output unit 6 is configured to output the response priority, update recommendation level, etc. for each piece of building equipment not only to the display 14 of the computer 8 but also to the external storage device 12 as a data file such as a document. Alternatively, the result output unit 6 can be configured to output the response priority, update recommendation level, etc. for each piece of building equipment to a printer 16 connected to the computer 8. Furthermore, although the building equipment is listed in order of response priority in Figure 9, the order in which the equipment is listed does not have to be in order of response priority, and the present invention can also be configured so that each piece of building equipment is listed by classifying it by function.

[0071] According to the repair plan support system 1 of the embodiment of the present invention, for each piece of building equipment to be evaluated, the result output unit 6 outputs a response priority indicating the degree of necessity for response and an update recommendation level indicating the degree to which updating of the equipment is recommended (FIG. 9), so the user can easily create a repair plan for the building equipment by referring to the results output by the result output unit 6. In addition, the deterioration state analysis unit 4 evaluates the state of each piece of building equipment based on the relationship between a first deterioration level that can be addressed by repair and a second deterioration level that cannot be addressed by repair, so the need for repair or updating of the building equipment can be accurately evaluated.

[0072] Furthermore, according to the repair plan support system 1 of this embodiment, the diagnostic result acquisition unit 2 is configured to be able to input a data file that records the results of daily inspections of building equipment, and the data in the input data file can be acquired as the diagnostic results of the diagnostic items linked to that data (Fig. 4). As a result, the daily inspection data that is recorded on a daily basis can be used to create repair plans for building equipment, significantly reducing the effort required for data input.

[0073] Furthermore, according to the repair plan support system 1 of this embodiment, the deterioration state analysis unit 4 calculates the response priority by multiplying the importance coefficient Ki, which is set based on the impact of the building equipment on business continuity and / or the presence or absence of backup (Figure 7), so that it is possible to calculate an accurate response priority that takes into account the impact on business continuity, etc.

[0074] Furthermore, according to the repair planning support system 1 of this embodiment, the deterioration state analysis unit 4 calculates the renewal recommendation level by applying a weight based on the maintenance cost of the building equipment (maintenance cost coefficient Kc) and / or a weight based on the energy saving property (non-energy saving coefficient Ke), so that an accurate renewal recommendation level can be calculated taking into account the maintenance cost, etc.

[0075] Furthermore, according to the repair planning support system 1 of this embodiment, the deterioration state analysis unit 4 evaluates the deterioration state on a map (Figure 6) with the first deterioration degree and the second deterioration degree as parameters, so that the deterioration state can be evaluated taking the first deterioration degree and the second deterioration degree into account accurately.

[0076] Furthermore, according to the repair plan support system 1 of this embodiment, the result output unit 6 outputs the response priority for each piece of building equipment to be evaluated (Figure 9), allowing the user to intuitively determine which building equipment should be prioritized for response, making it possible to easily create repair plans for building equipment.

[0077] Although the embodiment of the present invention has been described above, various modifications can be made to the above-described embodiment. [Explanation of symbols]

[0078] 1 Repair planning support system 2. Diagnostic result acquisition unit 4. Deterioration state analysis section 6 Result output section 8. Computers 10 Keyboard 12 External storage device 14 Display 16 Printers

Claims

1. A repair plan support system that supports the creation of repair plans for building equipment installed in a building, a diagnostic result acquisition unit that acquires diagnostic results regarding a plurality of predetermined diagnostic items determined for each piece of building equipment to be evaluated; a deterioration state analysis unit that calculates a first deterioration level that can be addressed by repair and a second deterioration level that cannot be addressed by repair for each piece of building equipment based on the diagnostic results of each diagnostic item of each piece of building equipment acquired by this diagnostic result acquisition unit, and evaluates the state of each piece of building equipment based on the relationship between the first deterioration level and the second deterioration level; a result output unit that outputs, for each building facility to be evaluated, a response priority that indicates the degree of necessity of response and an update recommendation level that indicates the degree to which updating of the facility is recommended, calculated by the deterioration state analysis unit; A repair planning support system that features the following:

2. The repair planning support system of claim 1, wherein the diagnostic result acquisition unit is configured to be able to input a data file recording the results of daily inspections of at least some of the building equipment to be evaluated, and acquires the data from the input data file as the diagnostic result for the diagnostic item linked to that data.

3. The repair planning support system of claim 1, wherein the deterioration state analysis unit is configured to calculate the response priority by multiplying the first deterioration level and the second deterioration level by the importance coefficient of the building equipment to be evaluated, and the importance coefficient is set based on the impact of the building equipment on business continuity and / or whether or not the building equipment has a backup.

4. The repair planning support system of claim 1, wherein the deterioration state analysis unit calculates the renewal recommendation level by assigning a weight based on the maintenance cost of the building equipment and / or a weight based on the energy-saving properties of the building equipment to the second deterioration level.

5. The repair planning support system of claim 1, wherein the deterioration state analysis unit identifies a position on a map for each building equipment to be evaluated, with the first deterioration level as a first parameter and the second deterioration level as a second parameter, and evaluates the deterioration state based on the position of the building equipment on the map.

6. 2. The repair planning support system according to claim 1, wherein the result output unit is further configured to output a response priority indicating the order of priority of the response for each piece of building equipment to be evaluated.

7. A repair plan support program that supports the creation of repair plans for building equipment installed in a building, The repair planning support program includes: a diagnostic result acquisition unit that acquires diagnostic results regarding a plurality of predetermined diagnostic items determined for each piece of building equipment to be evaluated; a deterioration state analysis unit that calculates a first deterioration level for each piece of building equipment that can be addressed by repair and a second deterioration level that cannot be addressed by repair based on the diagnostic results of each diagnostic item for each piece of building equipment acquired by this diagnostic result acquisition unit, and evaluates the state of each piece of building equipment based on the relationship between the first deterioration level and the second deterioration level; and, a result output unit that outputs, for each piece of building equipment to be evaluated, a response priority indicating the degree of necessity of response and a renewal recommendation level indicating the degree to which renewal of the equipment is recommended, calculated by the deterioration state analysis unit; A repair planning support program that functions as a

Images