Repair support device and repair support method

Abstract

To provide a highly convenient repair support device or the like considering the influence of salt damage.SOLUTION: A repair support device 10 includes a processing unit 2 that specifies a salt damage area division of a position of a facility to be repaired on the basis of latitude and longitude of the facility and a salt damage map 12 indicating the salt damage area division, and calculates at least one of a construction cost when the facility is repaired and an endurance time of the facility against salt damage after the repair on the basis of the salt damage area division. The processing unit 2 calculates the endurance time of the repaired facility against the salt damage based on the endurance time of the test piece against the predetermined salt spray test corresponding to the salt damage area section.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present disclosure relates to a repair support device and the like. [Background technology]

[0002] Regarding facility maintenance, for example, the technology described in Patent Document 1 is known. That is, Patent Document 1 describes that "the timing of inspection is determined so as to minimize the total cost, including the expected damage amount, the expected repair cost, and the inspection cost," for the object to be inspected. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2004-334457 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] Although Patent Document 1 describes cases where the object to be inspected is electronic equipment, it does not describe cases where repairs are to be made to specific facilities such as substation facilities. Furthermore, while salt damage tends to accelerate deterioration and corrosion of facilities near the coast, Patent Document 1 does not take this into consideration.

[0005] Therefore, an object of the present disclosure is to provide a highly convenient repair support device and the like that takes into account the effects of salt damage. [Means for solving the problem]

[0006] In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, the repair support device disclosed herein is equipped with a processing unit that identifies the salt damage area classification of the location of the equipment based on the latitude and longitude of the equipment to be repaired and a salt damage map showing salt damage area classifications, and calculates one or both of the construction costs for repairing the equipment and the durability time of the equipment against salt damage after repair based on the salt damage area classification. [Effects of the Invention]

[0007] According to the present disclosure, it is possible to provide a highly convenient repair support device and the like that takes into account the effects of salt damage. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0008] [Figure 1] 1 is a configuration diagram of a repair support system including a repair support device according to an embodiment. [Figure 2] FIG. 10 is an explanatory diagram illustrating an example of a damage record table of the repair support device according to the embodiment. [Figure 3] FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a salt damage map of the repair support device according to the embodiment. [Figure 4] FIG. 10 is an explanatory diagram illustrating an example of a salt spray test result table of the repair support device according to the embodiment. [Figure 5] 4 is a flowchart showing processing by a processing unit included in the repair support device according to the embodiment. [Figure 6] 10 is a first display example showing a processing result of a processing unit of the repair support device according to the embodiment. [Figure 7] 10 is a second display example showing the processing results of the processing unit of the repair support device according to the embodiment. [Figure 8] 10 is a third display example showing the processing result of the processing unit of the repair support device according to the embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0009] <Embodiment> <Configuration of repair support device> FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram of a repair support system 100 including a repair support device 10 according to the first embodiment. The repair support system 100 shown in FIG. 1 is a system that generates information regarding the repair of a specified facility. Examples of "facility" to be repaired include substation facilities, power transmission and distribution facilities, communication facilities, air conditioning facilities, refrigeration facilities, and bridges. Other examples of "facility" include power generation plants, manufacturing plants, water treatment plants, and chemical plants. As shown in FIG. 1, the repair support system 100 includes a repair support device 10, an input device 30, and a display device 40.

[0010] The repair support device 10 is a device that calculates the construction costs for repairing a specified facility and the durability time against salt damage after repair, and presents the results to a user. Such repair support device 10 may be configured as a single computer, or may be configured as multiple computers connected via a network. For example, the functions of the repair support device 10 may be distributed across multiple computers such as cloud servers and edge servers.

[0011] 1, the repair support device 10 includes a memory unit 1 and a processing unit 2. The memory unit 1 pre-stores a damage record table 11, a salt damage map 12, and a salt spray test result table 13. Although not shown, the hardware configuration of the memory unit 1 includes a hard disk drive (HDD), a random access memory (RAM), and a read only memory (ROM).

[0012] The damage record table 11 is a data table containing damage record information for a given piece of equipment. The damage record table 11 contains information such as the latitude and longitude indicating the location of the equipment, as well as the damaged part and damage level. The salt damage map 12 is a map (map information) showing salt damage area classifications. In this embodiment, salt damage area classifications are made into four levels based on the degree of salt damage. The salt spray test result table 13 is a data table that includes the results of a salt spray test conducted in advance on a predetermined test piece, and the construction cost per unit area when repairing the facility.

[0013] As shown in Fig. 1, the processing unit 2 includes a salt-damaged area determination unit 21, a durability time / cost calculation unit 22, and a display control unit 23. Although not shown, the hardware configuration of the processing unit 2 includes a processor such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit). The processor reads out a predetermined program stored in the ROM (not shown) or hard disk drive (not shown), loads it into RAM (not shown), and executes predetermined processing.

[0014] The salt damage area determination unit 21 determines the salt damage area classification of the location of the facility based on the latitude and longitude of the facility in the damage record table 11 and the salt damage map 12. The durability time / cost calculation unit 22 calculates the durability time and construction costs of the equipment against salt damage after repair based on the salt damage area classification of the equipment location, the damage record table 11, and the salt spray test result table 13. The display control unit 23 causes the display device 40 to display the processing results of the salt-damaged region determination unit 21 and the durability time / cost calculation unit 22 in a predetermined manner.

[0015] The input device 30 is used for input operations by the user, and is connected to the repair support device 10. As such an input device 30, for example, a keyboard or a mouse is used. The display device 40 displays the processing results of the repair support device 10 in a predetermined manner. For example, a liquid crystal display is used as the display device 40. Note that a touch panel type mobile terminal that combines the functions of the input device 30 and the display device 40, such as a smartphone or tablet, may also be used.

[0016] FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the damage record table 11. As shown in FIG. As described above, the damage record table 11 shown in Fig. 2 is a data table containing damage record information for equipment. For example, an inspector inspects a specific piece of equipment to determine whether it is damaged, as well as the location and level of damage, and the inspection results are input appropriately through an input operation into a terminal (not shown). The damage record table 11 is created in advance based on such inspection results.

[0017] In the example of Figure 2, the damage record table 11 associates "Damage No.", "Site Name," "Latitude," "Longitude," "Unit," "Inspection Date and Time," "Inspector," "Damaged Location," and "Damage Level." "Damage No." is an identification number assigned to damage found during inspection. "Site Name" is the name of the site where the equipment that was inspected is located. "Latitude" and "Longitude" are the latitude and longitude of the location of the equipment that was inspected. "Unit" is the unit number of the equipment at a specific site. "Inspection Date and Time" is the date and time the equipment inspection was performed. The "Inspector" column registers the inspector's name and identification information.

[0018] A "damaged area" is an area of ​​a given piece of equipment where damage has occurred. Examples of such damage include, but are not limited to, cracks, corrosion, and rust in components. A "damage level" indicates the degree of damage at a given damaged area. In the example in Figure 2, "damage level" is classified into three levels: "minor," "medium," and "major."

[0019] FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the salt damage map 12. As described above, the salt damage map 12 shown in Fig. 3 is a map (map information) showing salt damage area classifications. In the example of Fig. 3, the salt damage area classifications are divided into four levels. That is, in order of increasing degree of salt damage (areas close to the coast), the areas are classified into "areas adjacent to reefs," "heavily salt damaged areas," "salt damaged areas," and "non-salt damaged areas."

[0020] "Areas adjacent to reefs" are coastal areas that are likely to be directly hit by sea spray. "Severe salt damage areas" are areas that are relatively affected by salt damage, although not as severely as the aforementioned areas adjacent to reefs. For example, areas that are further inland than areas adjacent to reefs and within a few hundred meters of the coast are designated as "severe salt damage areas."

[0021] "Salt-damaged areas" are areas that may be affected by salt damage, but not to the same extent as the areas adjacent to reefs or heavily salt-damaged areas mentioned above. For example, areas inland from heavily salt-damaged areas where salt may be blown by the wind are set as "salt-damaged areas." "Non-salt-damaged areas" are areas where there is little risk of salt damage. The example in Figure 3 shows a case where salt-damaged area classifications are divided into four levels, but the number of salt-damaged area classifications can be changed as appropriate.

[0022] FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the salt spray test result table 13. The salt spray test result table 13 shown in Fig. 4 is a data table based on the results of a preliminary salt spray test, and is configured to include four sheets 13a to 13d. Note that the closer the location of the equipment to be repaired is to the coast, the shorter the durability time against salt damage after repair tends to be. Therefore, in this embodiment, four sheets 13a to 13d corresponding to the four salt damage area classifications are created in advance as the salt spray test result table 13.

[0023] The first sheet 13a shown in Figure 4 is a data table used to calculate the durability time of the equipment against salt damage and construction costs when the equipment to be repaired is installed in an area adjacent to a reef (see Figure 3). Another sheet 13b is used when the equipment to be repaired is installed in a heavily salt-damaged area (see Figure 3). Furthermore, sheet 13c is used when the equipment to be repaired is installed in a salt-damaged area (see Figure 3). Sheet 13d is used when the equipment to be repaired is installed in a non-salt-damaged area (see Figure 3). Below, sheet 13a for the area adjacent to a reef will be mainly described, but the remaining sheets 13b to 13d have a similar format.

[0024] As shown in FIG. 4, sheet 13a for areas adjacent to reefs associates "type of work," "specifications," "results," and "work costs." The "type of work" field contains the type of work performed on test pieces (not shown) in a prior salt spray test. In the salt spray test, salt water is sprayed onto each of multiple types of test pieces, and the subsequent changes in the test pieces (progression of cracks, corrosion, and rust) are observed.

[0025] The amount and frequency of saltwater spraying on the test specimens correspond to the aforementioned salt damage area classification. For example, when preparing the sheet 13a for an area adjacent to a reef, the amount and frequency of saltwater spraying on the test specimens are appropriately set, taking into account the possibility that saltwater will splash onto the equipment in the area adjacent to the reef and that sea breezes will blow in.

[0026] The sheet 13b for areas with heavy salt damage and the sheet 13c for areas with salt damage are also prepared in the same manner. Incidentally, since areas without salt damage are hardly affected by salt damage, the sheet 13d (for areas without salt damage) may be prepared based on the observation results of the deterioration of the test specimens over time, without spraying salt water onto the test specimens.

[0027] Each test piece (not shown) is subjected to a predetermined treatment using a method specified by the "treatment type" and "specification." The treatment methods applied to the test pieces correspond to multiple treatment methods that are candidates for repairing equipment. In the example of Figure 4, three treatment types are registered: "thermal spray + sealing," "thermal spray," and "plating."

[0028] In the "thermal spraying + sealing" process, a test piece or other object is thermally sprayed and sealed. "Thermal spraying" refers to the process of forming a coating by molten metal and then spraying it onto the object. Examples of thermal spraying techniques include gas spraying and electric spraying. "Sealing" refers to the process of infiltrating a specific sealing material into the numerous pores in the coating formed by thermal spraying. This "sealing" process promotes corrosion prevention for the metal coating, as well as strengthening and extending the coating's lifespan. "Thermal spraying + sealing" is often performed when the equipment is relatively severely damaged.

[0029] Incidentally, when the "damage level" is "large" in the damage record table 11 of Figure 2, it is not the case that "thermal spraying + sealing" is adopted as the type of work, but rather the user can select the type of work as appropriate (the same applies to the remaining "thermal spraying" and "plating").

[0030] In the "thermal spraying" shown in Figure 4, thermal spraying is applied to an object such as a test piece without any special sealing treatment. Note that "thermal spraying" is often performed when the level of damage to the equipment is moderate. "Plating" shown in FIG. 4 is a process of coating the surface of an object with a thin metal film. Examples of such "plating" techniques include electroplating and hot-dip galvanizing. Note that "plating" is often performed when the level of damage to the equipment is relatively low. Furthermore, the candidate types of work are not limited to the example shown in FIG. 4. For example, the candidate types of work may include "painting" of metal.

[0031] The "Specifications" shown in Figure 4 registers details of the work performed on test pieces (not shown) for salt spray testing. In the example of Figure 4, the "Specifications" items include "Coating Type," "Coating Thickness," and "Sealing Material." "Coating Type" indicates the type of coating (metal content) used in thermal spraying or other coatings on the test pieces. "Coating Thickness" indicates the thickness of the coating used in thermal spraying or other coatings on the test pieces. "Sealing Material" indicates the type of sealing material used to seal the test pieces.

[0032] The "Results" shown in Figure 4 are the durability times of the test specimens in a specified salt spray test. That is, the "Results" in Figure 4 are the durability times from the start of the salt spray test, in which a specified amount of salt water is sprayed onto the test specimen (not shown) at a specified frequency, until cracks, corrosion, or rust appear on the test specimen. The durability times of the test specimens in these "Results" are used to calculate the durability times of the equipment. The "Equipment durability time" is a predicted value of the time from the time the damaged parts of the equipment are repaired using a specified construction method (the method specified by the "Construction Type" and "Specifications" in Figure 4) until defects such as cracks, corrosion, or rust appear in the repaired parts due to salt damage.

[0033] Incidentally, the endurance time of the test specimen in the salt spray test ("Result" in Figure 4) may be used as is as the endurance time of the equipment. Also, the endurance time of the equipment after repair may be calculated appropriately based on the damaged part of the equipment (see Figure 2) and the damage level (see Figure 2) in addition to the endurance time of the test specimen.

[0034] In the "Results" shown in Figure 4, a "○" or "×" symbol is associated with a predetermined value indicating the durability time. The "○" symbol indicates that the test specimen showed almost no cracking, corrosion, or rusting after the predetermined time (the time specified in the "○" symbol column) had elapsed since the start of the salt spray test. The "×" symbol indicates that the test specimen showed cracking, corrosion, or rusting after the predetermined time had elapsed since the start of the salt spray test.

[0035] For example, if the "coating type" is "Zn-50%, Al-50%", the coating thickness is 100 μm, and the sealing material is silicone resin, the mark "○" will appear from the start of the salt spray test until 3000 hours have passed, but after 6000 hours the mark will appear "×". In this case, the durability of the test piece will be 3000 hours.

[0036] The "construction cost" shown in Figure 4 is the construction cost per unit area when repairing equipment using a specified construction method tested on a test specimen, and is associated with the construction type and specifications. Such "construction cost" is used to calculate the construction cost when repairing equipment. Of the multiple construction methods specified by the "construction type" and "specifications," the more expensive the construction method, the longer the durability against salt damage tends to be.

[0037] FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing the processing of the processing unit provided in the repair support device (see also FIG. 1 as appropriate). At the time of "START" in Figure 5, it is assumed that the damage record table 11 (see Figure 2), salt damage map 12 (see Figure 3), and salt spray test result table 13 (see Figure 4) have already been created. In step S101, the processing unit 2 reads data from the damage record table 11 (see FIG. 2) and the salt damage map 12 (see FIG. 3).

[0038] In step S102, the processing unit 2 determines whether or not a facility has been selected, i.e., whether or not one of the facilities registered in the damage record table 11 (see FIG. 2) has been selected by the user through the operation of the input device 30.

[0039] When equipment, etc. is selected in step S102, a predetermined site name (see FIG. 2) may be selected, or a "unit number" (see FIG. 2) within the site may be selected. In addition, a lower limit of the equipment's durability time, an upper limit of the construction cost, damaged parts of the equipment, and a construction method for repair may also be specified in step S102.

[0040] If equipment selection or the like is performed in step S102 (S102: Yes), the processing by the processing unit 2 proceeds to step S103. On the other hand, if equipment selection or the like is not performed in step S102 (S102: No), the processing unit 2 repeats the processing of step S102.

[0041] In step S103, the processing unit 2 determines the salt damage area classification using the salt damage area classification unit 21. That is, the processing unit 2 identifies the latitude and longitude of the facility specified in step S102 based on the damage record table 11 (see FIG. 2), and further identifies the salt damage area classification (reef adjacent area, heavy salt damage area, salt damage area, or non-salt damage area) of the area including the latitude and longitude of this facility based on the salt damage map 12 (see FIG. 3). In this way, the processing unit 2 determines the salt damage area classification of the facility location based on the latitude and longitude of the facility to be repaired and the salt damage map 12 (see FIG. 3) that indicates the salt damage area classification.

[0042] Next, in step S104, the processing unit 2 reads data from the salt spray test result table 13 (see FIG. 4). That is, the processing unit 2 refers to the salt spray test result table 13 and reads data from the four sheets 13a to 13d (see FIG. 4) that correspond to the salt damage area classification identified in step S103.

[0043] In step S105, the processing unit 2 calculates the durability time and construction cost when repairing the equipment using the durability time / cost calculation unit 22. That is, the processing unit 2 calculates one or both of the construction cost when repairing the equipment and the durability time of the equipment against salt damage after repair, based on the salt damage area classification of the equipment's location. Details of the processing of step S105 will be described later.

[0044] Next, in step S106, the processing unit 2 displays the results. That is, the processing unit 2 displays the durability time and construction cost calculated in step S105 in a predetermined manner on the display device 40. After performing the processing of step S106, the processing unit 2 ends the series of processing (END).

[0045] FIG. 6 is a first display example showing the processing results of the processing unit. In the example of Figure 6, the locations of multiple substations are indicated by stars on the salt damage map 12. The locations of the substations are identified based on latitude and longitude data included in the damage record table 11. When a specific substation is selected from among the multiple substations by a user's operation via the input device 30 (see Figure 1), as indicated by the mouse pointer P1, the damage record table 11 for that substation is displayed in tabular form on the display device 40 (see Figure 1).

[0046] The bottom of the screen of the damage record table 11 displays the site name of the equipment selected by the user, as well as the salt damage area classification of the location of this equipment (heavy salt damage area in the example of FIG. 6). The "endurance time" shown in FIG. 6 is set by the user's operation via the input device 30 (see FIG. 1). In the example of FIG. 6, a horizontal number line L2 with a scale of endurance time is displayed, and an inverted triangle mark M2 indicating the endurance time specified by the user is displayed on the number line L2.

[0047] When the user moves the mouse pointer P2 horizontally via the input device 30, the position of the mark M2 moves along the number line L2. In the example of Fig. 6, 7000 hours is specified as the durability time of the equipment after repair. This means that the lower limit of the durability time of the equipment after repair is set to 7000 hours.

[0048] In this way, when a lower limit value for the durability time is specified by the user through the input device 30 (see Figure 1), the processing unit 2 (see Figure 1) calculates the construction cost so that the durability time of the equipment against salt damage after repair is equal to or greater than the lower limit value.

[0049] More specifically, the processing unit 2 first refers to the damage record table 11 and determines the salt damage area classification of the location specified by the latitude and longitude of the facility based on the salt damage map 12 (S103 in FIG. 5). Then, the processing unit 2 reads data corresponding to the salt damage area classification of the facility in the salt spray test result table 13 (see FIG. 4) (S104 in FIG. 5). In the example of FIG. 6, the facility is installed in a "heavy salt damage area," so data in the sheet 13b for heavy salt damage area in the salt spray test result table 13 (see FIG. 4) is read.

[0050] Furthermore, for the sheet 13b (see FIG. 4) for areas prone to heavy salt damage, the processing unit 2 extracts, from among the multiple construction methods (methods specified by "construction type" and "specification"), those for which the durability of the test specimen is 7000 hours or more. Note that the upper limit of the durability time may be automatically set to the durability time specified by the user (7000 hours) plus a predetermined time, such as a durability time of 7000 hours or more and 8000 hours or less. Alternatively, the upper limit of the durability time may not be set automatically.

[0051] Then, the processing unit 2 calculates the construction cost when repairing the equipment based on the construction cost (construction cost per unit area) for the extracted construction method, as well as the damaged part and damage level of the equipment in the damage record table 11 (S105 in FIG. 5). In this way, the processing unit 2 calculates the construction cost when repairing the equipment based on the construction cost per unit area when repairing the equipment using a predetermined construction method ("construction cost" in FIG. 4), the damaged part of the equipment, and the damage level of the equipment.

[0052] Since there may be multiple construction methods that meet the conditions specified by the user, a range of construction costs (estimated values) is displayed in the example of Figure 6. By displaying construction costs in this way, the user can understand the approximate construction costs required to ensure a specified durability period against salt damage when repairing equipment.

[0053] Furthermore, it is preferable that the processing unit 2 displays a list of construction methods that satisfy the lower limit of durability time (7000 hours in the example of FIG. 6) among a plurality of construction methods that are candidates for repairing the equipment on the display device 40. This allows the user to know what specific construction methods are available that satisfy the durability time condition.

[0054] FIG. 7 is a second display example showing the processing results of the processing unit. The example of FIG. 7 differs from the example of FIG. 6 in that the construction cost is set by a user's input operation. That is, in the example of FIG. 7, a horizontal number line L3 with a construction cost scale is displayed, and an inverted triangle mark M3 indicating the construction cost specified by the user is displayed on the number line L3. As indicated by the mouse pointer P3, the mark M3 moves on the number line L3 by the user's operation via the input device 30 (see FIG. 1). In the example of FIG. 7, 70M yen (70 million yen) is specified as the construction cost. This means that the upper limit of the construction cost of the equipment is set to 70M yen.

[0055] In this way, when an upper limit value for construction costs is specified by the user through the input device 30 (see Figure 1), the processing unit 2 (see Figure 1) calculates the durability time of the equipment against salt damage after repair so that the construction costs for repairing the equipment will be below the upper limit value.

[0056] More specifically, the processing unit 2 extracts construction methods (methods specified by "construction type" and "specifications") included in the sheet 13b (see FIG. 4) for areas prone to heavy salt damage that have construction costs of 70 million yen or less. Note that the construction cost may be automatically set by subtracting a predetermined value from the construction cost (70 million yen) specified by the user, such as a construction cost between 60 million yen and 70 million yen. Alternatively, the lower limit of construction costs may not be set automatically.

[0057] Then, the processing unit 2 calculates the durability time when repairing the equipment based on the durability time of the test piece in the extracted construction method (S105 in FIG. 5). In this way, the processing unit 2 calculates the durability time of the equipment after repair against salt damage based on the durability time of the test piece in a predetermined salt spray test corresponding to the salt damage area classification. As described above, the value of the durability time of the test piece may be used as the durability time of the equipment after repair, or the damaged part and damage level of the equipment may be taken into consideration in addition to the durability time of the test piece.

[0058] Since there may be multiple construction methods that satisfy the conditions specified by the user, a range of durability times (estimated values) is displayed in the example of Figure 7. By displaying the durability times in this way, the user can understand how much durability time can be ensured if the equipment repair costs are kept below a predetermined value.

[0059] Furthermore, it is preferable that the processing unit 2 displays a list of construction methods that satisfy the upper limit of construction costs (70 million yen in the example of FIG. 7) among a plurality of construction methods that are candidates for repairing the facility on the display device 40 (see FIG. 1). This allows the user to know what specific construction methods are available that satisfy the construction cost conditions.

[0060] FIG. 8 is a third display example showing the processing results of the processing unit. The example in Figure 8 differs from the examples in Figures 6 and 7 in that check boxes are provided in the "Selection" column B1 of the damage record table 11, allowing the user to select the damaged areas for which the construction costs will be calculated. In the example in Figure 8, two check boxes have been entered by the user in the check boxes in the "Selection" column B1. These check boxes each correspond to a specific damaged area indicated by a thick frame F1.

[0061] Furthermore, as indicated by the mouse pointer P4, an inverted triangle mark M4 moves on the endurance time number line L4 in response to a user's operation via the input device 30 (see FIG. 1). In the example of FIG. 8, 7000 hours is specified as the endurance time. This means that the lower limit of the endurance time when repairing the damaged portion (the damaged portion selected by the check box) is set to 7000 hours.

[0062] In this way, when the user specifies the damaged part of the equipment and the lower limit value of the durability time through operation via the input device 30 (see Figure 1), the processing unit 2 (see Figure 1) calculates the construction cost required to repair the equipment so that the durability time of the damaged part against salt damage after repair will be equal to or greater than the lower limit value.

[0063] When multiple damaged areas are selected as shown in Figure 8, the total cost of repairing these damaged areas is displayed as "Repair Cost." In this way, the user can specify the damaged areas for which the durability time is to be calculated (i.e., the calculation targets for durability time, etc. can be narrowed down), which improves user convenience.

[0064] <Effects> According to this embodiment, when repairing facilities near the coast, the processing unit 2 calculates the durability of the facilities against salt damage and the construction costs. This allows the values ​​of the durability of the facilities and the construction costs to be presented to the user, improving convenience when repairing the facilities. Furthermore, since the durability of the facilities is calculated based on the results of the salt spray test, the durability of the facilities can be calculated with higher accuracy than when the effects of salt damage are not taken into account.

[0065] Furthermore, it is possible to present a predetermined repair menu that takes into account the site location (degree of impact of salt damage) to the user (the person operating the equipment) before the user visits the site. Furthermore, when the user creates a repair plan for the equipment, the user can refer to the construction costs and durability time values ​​calculated by the repair support device 10. In this way, according to this embodiment, it is possible to provide a highly convenient repair support device 10 and repair support method that take into account the impact of salt damage.

[0066] <<Variations>> Although the repair support device 10 and the repair support method according to the present disclosure have been described in the above embodiments, the present disclosure is not limited to these descriptions and various modifications can be made. For example, in the embodiment, a process has been described in which the calculation result of the repair cost is displayed when the user specifies a damaged part and also specifies an upper limit value for the equipment's durability against salt damage (see FIG. 8), but this is not limited to this. That is, when the user specifies a damaged part of the equipment and also specifies an upper limit value for the repair cost for the damaged part through an operation by the user via the input device 30 (see FIG. 1), the processing unit 2 (see FIG. 1) may calculate the durability time of the damaged part against salt damage after repair so that the repair cost for the damaged part is equal to or less than the upper limit value (the upper limit value specified by the user). This allows the user to specify the damaged part to be the target for calculating the durability time, thereby improving convenience.

[0067] Furthermore, when a user specifies a damaged area of ​​equipment and a construction method through an input device 30 (see FIG. 1), the processing unit 2 (see FIG. 1) may calculate both the construction cost and the durability time based on the specified damaged area and construction method. This allows the user to understand how much construction cost will be required and how much durability time will be ensured when a specified construction method is applied to a specified damaged area. Note that the above-mentioned process (calculation of construction cost and durability time) appropriately uses the durability time of the test piece and the construction cost per unit area in the salt spray test result table 13 (see FIG. 4), as well as the damaged area of ​​the equipment and the damage level in the damage record table 11 (see FIG. 2).

[0068] In the embodiment, the latitude and longitude of the facility are identified based on the damage record table 11 (see FIG. 2), but this is not limiting. For example, the latitude and longitude of the facility may be identified based on map information including the location of the facility. Furthermore, even if salt damage has not actually occurred, the damage record table 11 (see FIG. 2) may be created assuming damage due to salt damage.

[0069] In the embodiment, the damage record table 11, the salt damage map 12, and the salt spray test result table 13 are stored in the memory unit 1 of the repair support device 10 (see FIG. 1), but the present invention is not limited to this. That is, the data of the damage record table 11, the salt damage map 12, and the salt spray test result table 13 may be appropriately stored in a server (not shown) connected to the repair support device 10 via a network (not shown). Furthermore, the processes (such as processes in the repair support method) executed by the repair support device 10 may be executed as a predetermined program by a computer. The program may be provided via a communication line, or may be written to a recording medium such as a CD-ROM and distributed.

[0070] Furthermore, the present disclosure is not limited to the embodiments and includes various modifications. For example, the embodiments have been described in detail to clearly explain the present disclosure, and the present disclosure is not necessarily limited to those including all of the described configurations. Furthermore, it is possible to add, delete, or replace part of the configuration of the embodiments with other configurations.

[0071] Furthermore, the above-mentioned configurations, functions, processing units, processing means, etc. may be partly or entirely implemented in hardware, for example, by designing them as integrated circuits. Furthermore, the above-mentioned configurations, functions, etc. may be implemented in software, with a processor interpreting and executing a program that implements each function. Information such as the programs, tables, and files that implement each function can be stored in a memory, a recording device such as a hard disk or SSD (Solid State Drive), or a recording medium such as an IC card, SD card, or DVD.

[0072] In addition, the control lines and information lines shown are those that are considered necessary for the explanation, and do not necessarily show all the control lines and information lines in the product. In reality, it can be assumed that almost all components are interconnected. [Explanation of symbols]

[0073] 1 Storage section 2 Processing section 10 Repair support device 11 Damage Record Table 12 Salt Damage Map 13 Salt spray test result table 21 Salt Damage Area Identification Department 22 Durability and cost calculation section 23 Display control unit 30 Input Devices 40 Display device 100 Repair Support System

Claims

1. A repair support device that includes a processing unit that identifies the salt damage area classification of the location of equipment based on the latitude and longitude of the equipment to be repaired and a salt damage map showing salt damage area classifications, and calculates one or both of the construction costs for repairing the equipment and the durability time of the equipment against salt damage after repair based on the salt damage area classification.

2. The processing unit calculates the construction cost based on a construction cost per unit area when repairing the facility using a predetermined construction method, a damaged portion of the facility, and a damage level of the facility. The repair support device according to claim 1 ,

3. The processing unit calculates the durability time of the equipment against salt damage after repair based on the durability time of a test piece in a predetermined salt spray test corresponding to the salt damage area classification. The repair support device according to claim 1 ,

4. When a lower limit value of the durability time is specified by a user through an input device, the processing unit calculates the construction cost so that the durability time of the facility against salt damage after repair is equal to or greater than the lower limit value. The repair support device according to claim 1 ,

5. The processing unit displays on a display device a list of construction methods that satisfy the condition of the lower limit value from among a plurality of construction methods that are candidates for repairing the facility. The repair support device according to claim 4,

6. When a damaged portion of the equipment is designated and a lower limit value of the durability time is designated by a user's operation via an input device, the processing unit calculates a construction cost for the damaged portion so that the durability time of the damaged portion against salt damage after repair is equal to or greater than the lower limit value. The repair support device according to claim 1 ,

7. When an upper limit value of the construction cost is specified by a user through an input device, the processing unit calculates a durability time of the facility against salt damage after repair so that the construction cost when repairing the facility will be equal to or less than the upper limit value. The repair support device according to claim 1 ,

8. The processing unit displays on a display device a list of construction methods that satisfy the upper limit value condition from among a plurality of construction methods that are candidates for repairing the facility. The repair support device according to claim 7,

9. When a damaged portion of the facility is designated by a user through an input device and an upper limit value of construction costs for the damaged portion is designated, the processing unit calculates a durability time of the damaged portion against salt damage after repair so that the construction costs for repairing the damaged portion will be equal to or less than the upper limit value. The repair support device according to claim 1 ,

10. When a damaged portion of the equipment and a construction method are designated by a user through an input device, the processing unit calculates the construction cost and the durability time based on the damaged portion and the construction method. The repair support device according to claim 1 ,

11. A repair support method including a process of identifying the salt damage area classification of the location of equipment based on the latitude and longitude of the equipment to be repaired and a salt damage map showing salt damage area classifications, and calculating, based on the salt damage area classification, one or both of the construction costs for repairing the equipment and the durability time of the equipment against salt damage after repair.

Images