Evaluation system and evaluation method

Abstract

To provide an evaluation system and evaluation method that can contribute to improving cargo handling efficiency. [Solution] An evaluation method for evaluating the operation of a cargo handling machine by comparing the actual cargo handling time p1 required when the cargo handling machine actually performs cargo handling work with a specified cargo handling time p2 that the cargo handling machine virtually requires for cargo handling work, comprising: a first calculation step in which a first calculation unit 9 calculates the specified cargo handling time p2 using a machine model 8a that virtually reflects the performance of the cargo handling machine and a standard operator model 8b that virtually reflects the instructions sent from the operator to the cargo handling machine; a comparison step in which a comparison unit 10 compares the actual cargo handling time p1 and the specified cargo handling time p2; and an output step in which an output unit 11 outputs the results obtained in the comparison step.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to an evaluation system and an evaluation method for evaluating the operation of a cargo handling device, and more particularly to an evaluation system and an evaluation method that can contribute to improving the cargo handling efficiency.

Background Art

[0002] Various evaluation systems for evaluating the operation of cargo handling devices such as unloaders have been proposed (see, for example, Patent Document 1). The evaluation system described in Patent Document 1 has a configuration in which the current value when the unloader is operated is compared with the theoretical value of this current value. When the actual current value deviates from the theoretical value, it was determined that there was a problem with the unloader and maintenance was performed. It was easy to avoid a decrease in the cargo handling efficiency caused by problems with the unloader.

[0003] However, even when performing maintenance on cargo handling devices such as unloaders, there were cases where the cargo handling efficiency could not be improved. It was not possible to deal with a decrease in the cargo handling efficiency caused by factors other than problems with the cargo handling device.

Prior Art Documents

Patent Documents

[0004] <unk>

Patent Document 1

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0005] The present invention has been made in view of the above problems, and an object thereof is to provide an evaluation system and an evaluation method that can contribute to improving the cargo handling efficiency.

Means for Solving the Problems

[0006] An evaluation system for achieving the above objective is an evaluation system for evaluating the operation of a cargo handling device by comparing the actual cargo handling time required when the cargo handling device actually performs cargo handling work with a specified cargo handling time that the cargo handling device virtually requires for cargo handling work, and is equipped with a control mechanism, the control mechanism being characterized by having a storage unit that stores a device model that virtually reflects the performance of the cargo handling device and a standard operator model that virtually reflects the instructions sent from the operator to the cargo handling device, a first calculation unit that calculates the specified cargo handling time using the device model and the standard operator model, a comparison unit that compares the actual cargo handling time and the specified cargo handling time, and an output unit that outputs the results obtained by the comparison unit.

[0007] An evaluation method for achieving the above objective is an evaluation method for evaluating the operation of a cargo handling device by comparing the actual cargo handling time required when the cargo handling device actually performs cargo handling work with a specified cargo handling time that the cargo handling device virtually requires for cargo handling work, and is characterized by comprising: a first calculation step of calculating the specified cargo handling time using a device model that virtually reflects the performance of the cargo handling device and a standard operator model that virtually reflects the instructions sent from the operator to the cargo handling device; a comparison step of comparing the actual cargo handling time with the specified cargo handling time; and an output step of outputting the result obtained in the comparison step. [Effects of the Invention]

[0008] According to the present invention, by comparing the specified loading / unloading time with the actual loading / unloading time, the evaluation system can identify the causes of delays in loading / unloading operations. By taking countermeasures according to the causes of delays, loading / unloading efficiency can be improved. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0009] [Figure 1] This is an explanatory diagram illustrating a yard crane in which an evaluation system is used. [Figure 2] This is an explanatory diagram illustrating the internal configuration of the evaluation system. [Figure 3] This is an explanatory diagram illustrating the control flow of the evaluation system. [Figure 4] This is an explanatory diagram illustrating the data handled by the evaluation system. [Figure 5] This is an explanatory diagram illustrating a modified example of Figure 4. [Modes for carrying out the invention]

[0010] The evaluation system and evaluation method will be described below based on the embodiment shown in the figure. In the figure, the traverse direction perpendicular to the crane's travel direction is indicated by arrow x, and the vertical direction is indicated by arrow z.

[0011] As illustrated in Figure 1, the evaluation system 1 is used in conjunction with cargo handling equipment 2, such as a yard crane. The evaluation system 1 has a configuration that evaluates the operation of the cargo handling equipment 2 by comparing the actual cargo handling time p1 required when the cargo handling equipment 2 actually performs cargo handling work with the specified cargo handling time p2 that the cargo handling equipment 2 virtually requires for cargo handling work.

[0012] The cargo handling equipment 2 is not limited to a yard crane positioned to move along the storage area 3 of the container terminal and to handle containers 5 between the storage area 3 and the chassis 4. The cargo handling equipment 2 may consist of a chassis 4 for transporting containers 5, a forklift, or a straddle carrier. The cargo handling equipment 2 may also consist of a quay crane installed on the quay and to handle containers 5 between the container ship and the chassis 4. The cargo handling equipment 2 may also consist of an unloader for handling bulk cargo such as coal.

[0013] Actual handling time p1 refers to the time spent by which the handling equipment 2, such as a yard crane, actually performs the handling operations. Actual handling time p1 refers to the time required, for example, when the lifting device 6 moves the container 5 from the storage area 3 to the chassis 4. Actual handling time p1 is obtained by measuring the time spent on the actual handling operations performed by the handling equipment 2. Actual handling time p1 may also include, for example, the time it takes for the lifting device 6 to move from the position of the chassis 4 after the container 5 has been handed over to the chassis 4 and to grasp the next container 5 in the storage area 3.

[0014] The specified handling time p2 refers to the time required to virtually operate a handling device such as a yard crane 2 to move a container 5 from the storage area 3 to the chassis 4. The specified handling time p2 is calculated.

[0015] As illustrated in Figure 2, the evaluation system 1 includes a control mechanism 7. The control mechanism 7 has a storage unit 8 that stores an equipment model 8a that virtually reflects the performance of the cargo handling equipment 2, and a standard operator model 8b that virtually reflects the instructions sent from the operator to the cargo handling equipment 2. The control mechanism 7 also includes a first calculation unit 9 that calculates a specified cargo handling time p2 using the equipment model 8a and the standard operator model 8b, a comparison unit 10 that compares the actual cargo handling time p1 with the specified cargo handling time p2, and an output unit 11 that outputs the results obtained by the comparison unit 10.

[0016] The control mechanism 7 is composed of, for example, a well-known PC or PLC (Programmable Logic Controller). The equipment model 8a is a virtual model that reproduces the travel speed of the cargo handling equipment 2, the traversing speed of the trolley 6a, the hoisting speed of the lifting device 6, etc. The equipment model 8a is created based on the actual performance of the cargo handling equipment 2, such as a yard crane. The standard operator model 8b is a model that reproduces the operation of the control stick by the operator when performing cargo handling work. For example, the standard operator model 8b is created based on the operation of the control stick by a skilled operator.

[0017] The container terminal has a management system for managing the handling operations of a plurality of handling devices 2. The evaluation system 1 is installed, for example, near the management system. The evaluation system 1 may be incorporated into a PC or the like constituting the management system. Also, the evaluation system 1 may be configured to be installed in the handling device 2. The evaluation system 1 preferably includes a communication mechanism 12 capable of communicating with the handling device 2 or the management system by wire or wirelessly. Through the communication mechanism 12, the evaluation system 1 can acquire data associated with the operation of the handling device 2, such as the actual handling time p1. When the evaluation system 1 is incorporated into the management system, the actual handling time p1 and the like can be directly acquired from the management system. Therefore, the communication mechanism 12 is not an essential component in the evaluation system

[0018] Next, the evaluation method by the evaluation system 1 will be described. Taking the case of handling the container 5 above the storage area 3 illustrated in FIG. 1 onto the chassis 4 as an example, the evaluation method will be described. As illustrated in FIG. 3, first, the control mechanism 7 calculates a specified handling time p2 using a device model 8a that virtually reflects the performance of the handling device 2 and a standard operator model 8b that virtually reflects the instructions sent from the operator to the handling device 2 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the first calculation step S10).

[0019] For the device model 8a, a model corresponding to the yard crane that actually performs the handling is selected. Also, the position information and weight information of the container 5 to be handled are transmitted from the management system to the control mechanism 7 via, for example, the communication mechanism 12. The standard operator model 8b includes information regarding the path (route) when gripping the container 5 with the spreader 6 and moving it to the chassis 4, and the acceleration and deceleration when hoisting the spreader 6 or traversing the trolley 6a. In FIG. 1, the path of the spreader 6 is shown by a broken line for the sake of explanation. Based on the device model 8a and the standard operator model 8b, the handling operation of the container 5 is virtually executed. Thereby, the specified handling time p2 until the container 5 moves from the storage area 3 to the chassis 4 is calculated.

[0020] In parallel with the calculation of the specified handling time p2, the actual handling work by the handling device 2 is executed. After the completion of the handling work, the actual handling time p1 required for the actual handling is obtained. Specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 4, for example, the start time and end time for each handling work are recorded, and the actual handling time p1 can be calculated from the difference between these times. This actual handling time p1 is transmitted to the control mechanism 7 via, for example, the communication mechanism 12.

[0021] Next, the control mechanism 7 compares the actual handling time p1 and the specified handling time p2 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the comparison step S20). Since the specified handling time p2 is calculated based on ideal conditions, it is often shorter than the actual handling time p1. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 4, the actual handling time p1 in the handling work of work number 1 is 120 seconds and the specified handling time p2 is 90 seconds. In the handling work of work number 2 for handling another container 5, the actual handling time p1 is 100 seconds and the specified handling time p2 is 92 seconds.

[0022] Next, the control mechanism 7 outputs the result obtained in the comparison step S20 by the evaluation system 1 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the output step S30). Specifically, an alert may be output when the time difference between the actual handling time p1 and the specified handling time p2 exceeds a preset threshold value. The output step S30 may be configured such that the time difference represented by p1 - p2 is output as a value. Also, the output step S30 may be configured such that the values of the actual handling time p1 and the specified handling time p2 are output respectively.

[0023] The first calculation step S10, the comparison step S20, and the output step S30 are repeated for each handling work. Along with the handling work, the evaluation system 1 will collect a plurality of actual handling times p1 and specified handling times p2.

[0024] With this configuration, the evaluation system 1 can detect when the actual handling time p1 exceeds the specified handling time p2 calculated virtually. By investigating the factors causing the actual handling time p1 to be longer, handling efficiency can be improved. Specifically, the time difference p1-p2 may be, for example, 30 seconds or more. By investigating the factors causing delays in actual handling operations and implementing appropriate countermeasures, handling efficiency can be improved. Possible factors causing delays include operator factors, environmental factors, equipment factors, and unknown factors.

[0025] Operator-related delays are those resulting from the operator's actions, such as when the path of the lifting device 6 during cargo handling is inappropriate, or when the container 5 sways, causing delays before it can settle onto the chassis 4. Environmental delays include those resulting from constraints that must be considered when performing cargo handling. These constraints include, for example, the weight of the container 5 and the condition of obstacles such as the container 5 and other equipment around the cargo handling equipment 2. If the weight of the container 5 is greater than expected, the hoisting and traversing speeds will decrease, causing delays. Delays can also occur if the path is changed to avoid obstacles. Environmental delays include those resulting from external disturbances such as the effects of wind, uneven loading of the container 5, the slope of the ground surface below the cargo handling equipment 2, and disturbances to sensors caused by rain, snow, etc. Equipment-related delays are those resulting from the performance of the cargo handling equipment 2, such as when the hoisting speed of the lifting device 6 or the traversing speed of the trolley 6a does not reach the specified value due to deterioration of motors, etc., installed in the cargo handling equipment 2. Delays due to unknown factors occur when factors other than operator factors, environmental factors, and equipment factors cause a delay between the specified handling time p2 and the actual handling time p1.

[0026] In cargo handling operations where delays occur, analyzing data such as information related to cargo handling equipment 2 can sometimes identify the cause of the delay. By taking countermeasures according to the cause of the delay, cargo handling time can be shortened. This is advantageous for improving cargo handling efficiency.

[0027] With this configuration, the standard operator model 8b is used to calculate the specified handling time p2, so the time difference between the actual handling time p1 and the specified handling time p2 (p1-p2) may be significantly influenced by the actual operator's actions. By comparing the path of the standard operator model 8b with the path of the actual operator, the operator's skills can be improved. The specified handling time p2 is calculated before the operator completes the handling work. Therefore, the operator can check the time difference between the actual handling time p1 and the specified handling time p2 (p1-p2) each time they perform a handling operation. The operator can appropriately modify the method of operating the handling equipment 2, such as changing the path. This is advantageous for improving handling efficiency.

[0028] As illustrated in Figure 2, the cargo handling equipment 2 may be equipped with an acquisition mechanism 13 that acquires environmental information p3 when performing cargo handling operations. The acquisition mechanism 13 can consist of an anemometer installed in or near the cargo handling equipment 2, acceleration sensors installed in various places on the cargo handling equipment 2, etc. Alternatively, a communication mechanism 12 that acquires information such as the weight and uneven load of the container 5, the condition of obstacles around the location where the cargo handling equipment 2 is stopped, the slope of the ground surface, and weather information from a management system may function as the acquisition mechanism 13. The environmental information p3 consists of at least one of the following: wind speed information, weight and uneven load information of the container 5 being handled, and slope of the ground surface.

[0029] In this embodiment, the first calculation unit 9 calculates the specified loading and unloading time p2 using environmental information p3 in addition to the equipment model 8a and the standard operator model 8b. Specifically, for example, if the container 5 held by the lifting device 6 swings due to the effects of wind, time is required to stop this swing. The first calculation unit 9 calculates the specified loading and unloading time p2 taking this time into consideration. Also, if the container 5 swings significantly when being lifted from the storage area 3, the swing of the container 5 may be stopped by raising the lifting device 6 as high as possible to shorten the rope length between the lifting device 6 and the trolley 6a. In this case, the path of the lifting device 6 will not be the shortest distance to the chassis 4. The first calculation unit 9 calculates the specified loading and unloading time p2 taking this path into consideration. Furthermore, in order to avoid the lifting device 6 coming into contact with the equipment or container 5 around the loading and unloading equipment 2, a path that takes safety into consideration may be determined. The first calculation unit 9 calculates the specified loading and unloading time p2 based on this path.

[0030] In this embodiment, the first calculation step S10 calculates the specified loading time p2 using the equipment model 8a and the standard operator model 8b, as well as environmental information p3 when the loading equipment 2 performs loading operations.

[0031] This configuration allows delays in cargo handling operations due to environmental factors to be included in the specified cargo handling time p2 by utilizing environmental information p3. The delay in the actual cargo handling time p1 relative to the specified cargo handling time p2 will not include delays due to environmental factors. The cause of the delay can be limited to operator factors, equipment factors, or unknown factors. Furthermore, by calculating and comparing the specified cargo handling time p2 using environmental information p3 with the specified cargo handling time p2 without using environmental information p3, it becomes possible to virtually grasp the impact of environmental factors alone. Moreover, when using environmental information p3, it is also possible to configure the system to extract only arbitrary information. For example, by extracting only the constraint conditions of environmental information p3, it is possible to grasp their impact, or by grasping the impact of only the disturbance conditions. Evaluation system 1 may also be configured to extract only some of the information of the constraint conditions or disturbance conditions and grasp their impact. By understanding the impact of each piece of information constituting environmental information p3, it becomes possible to take measures such as improving the control method of cargo handling equipment 2 to suppress these impacts. This is advantageous for improving cargo handling efficiency.

[0032] As illustrated in Figure 2, the control mechanism 7 may also have a second calculation unit 14 that calculates a quasi-specified loading time p5 using an input signal p4 input by the operator to the loading equipment 2 and an equipment model 8a. Specifically, the input signal p4 input to the loading equipment 2 by the operator operating the control rod is sent to the loading equipment 2 and also transmitted to the control mechanism 7 via the communication mechanism 12. The second calculation unit 14 is in a state where the standard operator model 8b is not used. At this time, the comparison unit 10 compares, for example, the quasi-specified loading time p5 with the actual loading time p1.

[0033] As illustrated in Figure 3, the control mechanism 7 first calculates the quasi-specified loading time p5 using the input signal p4 input by the operator to the loading equipment 2 and the equipment model 8a (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the second calculation step S40). Next, the control mechanism 7 compares the quasi-specified loading time p5 with the actual loading time p1 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the second comparison step S50). In the embodiment illustrated in Figure 4, the actual loading time p1 for loading operation number 1 is 120 seconds and the quasi-specified loading time p5 is 110 seconds. The time difference between the actual loading time p1 and the quasi-specified loading time p5 (p1-p5) is 10 seconds.

[0034] In output step S30, for example, an alert can be output when the time difference (p1-p5) between the actual handling time p1 and the quasi-specified handling time p5 exceeds a preset threshold. Output step S30 may be configured to output the time difference represented by p1-p5, or it may be configured to output the values ​​of the actual handling time p1 and the quasi-specified handling time p5 separately. The output unit 11 may also have a configuration that allows for the distinction between alerts output based on the results of comparison step S20 and alerts output based on the results of the second comparison step S50.

[0035] In this configuration, both the actual handling time p1 and the quasi-specified handling time p5 represent the time based on the operator's actual actions. In other words, the time difference p1-p5 between the actual handling time p1 and the quasi-specified handling time p5 does not include operator factors. It becomes clear that the actual handling time p1 is delayed relative to the quasi-specified handling time p5 due to at least one of mechanical factors, environmental factors, or unknown factors.

[0036] The evaluation system 1 may be equipped with an acquisition mechanism 13 for acquiring environmental information p3, and the second calculation unit 14 may be configured to calculate a quasi-specified cargo handling time p5 using the environmental information p3 in addition to the input signal p4 input by the operator to the equipment model 8a and the cargo handling equipment 2. With this configuration, the time difference p1-p5 will not include environmental factors in addition to operator factors. In this case, the factors causing delays included in the actual cargo handling time p1 will be limited to at least one of mechanical factors or unknown factors. There is a possibility that the cargo handling equipment 2 is not performing as expected. Cargo handling efficiency can be improved by performing maintenance and repairs on the cargo handling equipment 2.

[0037] If the control mechanism 7 has a second calculation unit 14, the comparison unit 10 may have a configuration that compares the quasi-specified loading time p5 with the specified loading time p2. As illustrated in Figure 3, after the second calculation step S40, the control mechanism 7 compares the quasi-specified loading time p5 with the specified loading time p2 (sometimes called the third comparison step S60). The control mechanism 7 calculates the specified loading time p2 with the first calculation unit 9, and in parallel with this, calculates the quasi-specified loading time p5 with the second calculation unit 14. In the embodiment illustrated in Figure 4, the time difference (p5-p2) between the quasi-specified loading time p5 and the specified loading time p2 in the loading operation of work number 1 is 20 seconds.

[0038] In output step S30, for example, an alert can be output when the time difference (p5-p2) between the quasi-specified loading time p5 and the specified loading time p2 exceeds a preset threshold. Output step S30 may be configured to output the time difference represented by p5-p2, or it may be configured to output the values ​​of the quasi-specified loading time p5 and the specified loading time p2 separately. The output unit 11 may have a configuration that outputs alerts based on the results of comparison step S20, second comparison step S50, and third comparison step S60 in a distinguishable manner. The output unit 11 may also have a configuration that outputs alerts from comparison step S20, etc., without distinguishing between them.

[0039] In this configuration, the quasi-specified loading / unloading time p5 represents the time based on the operator's actual operations. Therefore, the time difference between the quasi-specified loading / unloading time p5 and the specified loading / unloading time p2 is clearly due to operator-induced delays. In other words, if p5-p2>0, it can be said that operator-induced delays have occurred. It may be possible to shorten loading / unloading time by changing the method of determining the loading / unloading path or by learning an appropriate method of determining the loading / unloading path. This is advantageous for improving loading / unloading efficiency.

[0040] The comparison unit 10 may have a configuration that performs only the comparison step S20. Alternatively, the comparison unit 10 may have a configuration that performs either the second comparison step S50 or the third comparison step S60 in addition to the comparison step S20. The comparison unit 10 may have a configuration that performs all of the comparison steps S20, the second comparison step S50, and the third comparison step S60.

[0041] The comparison unit 10 may have a configuration that divides the cargo handling process into multiple sub-processes and performs a comparison for each sub-process. Specifically, in the embodiment illustrated in Figure 1, the cargo handling process can be divided into multiple sub-processes: a hoisting process (sub-process 1) in which the lifting device 6 grips and hoists up the container 5, a traversing process (sub-process 2) in which the trolley 6a is moved horizontally, a lowering process (sub-process 3) in which the lifting device 6 is lowered, and a landing process (sub-process 4) in which the container 5 is laid down on the chassis 4. The process can be divided into multiple sub-processes depending on the cargo handling equipment 2, and is not limited to the above.

[0042] In this embodiment, the comparison step S20 is configured to divide the cargo handling process into multiple sub-processes and perform a comparison for each sub-process. As illustrated in Figure 5, the actual cargo handling time p1 is acquired for each sub-process. The specified cargo handling time p2 is also calculated for each sub-process. For example, the actual cargo handling time p1 in the hoisting process (sub-process 1) is acquired by the control mechanism 7 via the communication mechanism 12. In parallel, the specified cargo handling time p2 and the quasi-specified cargo handling time p5 are calculated by the first calculation unit 9 or the second calculation unit 14. In other words, the first calculation step S10, the comparison step S20, and the output step S30 are executed for each sub-process. If the evaluation system 1 has a second calculation unit 14, the second calculation step S40, the second comparison step S50, and the third comparison step S60 are also executed for each sub-process in the same manner as described above.

[0043] For example, if the time difference (p5-p2) between the specified handling time p2 and the quasi-specified handling time p5 in the hoisting process (sub-process 1) is 0 seconds, it can be said that there is no delay due to operator factors. Furthermore, it has been empirically established that the hoisting process is hardly affected by wind, etc. Therefore, the time difference (p1-p2) between the specified handling time p2 and the actual handling time p1 occurring in the hoisting process (sub-process 1) suggests that the speed at which the lifting device 6 is hoisted has not reached the specified speed, and it can be determined that a delay has occurred due to mechanical or environmental factors. By using environmental information p3, such as the weight of the container 5, when calculating the specified handling time p2, it is possible to determine whether or not there is a delay due to environmental factors. If there is no delay due to environmental factors, it is highly likely that the delay in the actual handling time p1 is due to mechanical factors. In this case, the handling efficiency can be improved by inspecting or replacing the motor used to hoist the lifting device 6.

[0044] For example, in the hoisting process (sub-process 1), traversing process (sub-process 2), and lowering process (sub-process 3), if p5-p2>0, it indicates a delay due to operator error. In this case, it becomes clear that there is a problem with the path setting of the lifting device 6. In the embodiment illustrated in Figure 5, p5-p2>0 occurs in the lowering process (sub-process 3), indicating a delay due to operator error. This may be because the lifting device 6 was hoisted too high in the hoisting process (sub-process 1). The operator can shorten the handling time by controlling the height to which the lifting device 6 is hoisted in the hoisting process (sub-process 1).

[0045] This configuration allows for the execution of comparison step S20, etc., for each of the multiple sub-processes, making it possible to pinpoint the specific cause of delays. This is advantageous for improving cargo handling efficiency because specific countermeasures can be taken according to the cause. Based on experience, it has become clear that some sub-processes are less prone to environmental factors, while others are less prone to operator factors. For example, in the hoisting process (sub-process 1), delays due to wind, etc., are rare. Also, since it only involves hoisting the lifting device 6, delays due to operator factors are rare. Delays in the hoisting process (sub-process 1) can be easily estimated to be due to mechanical factors, environmental factors (excluding the effects of wind), or unknown factors. Furthermore, even if delays occur due to mechanical factors, if they occur in the hoisting process (sub-process 1), it can be determined that the motor for hoisting the lifting device 6 is the cause, and if they occur in the traverse process (sub-process 2), it can be determined that the motor for traverse is the cause. This improves the accuracy of investigating the cause of delays, making it easier to select appropriate countermeasures. This is advantageous for improving cargo handling efficiency.

[0046] The evaluation system 1 and evaluation method are also applicable to cargo handling equipment 2 that performs cargo handling operations by automated operation. In the automated cargo handling equipment 2, for example, the actual operation of the cargo handling equipment 2 is performed using a standard operator model 8b. In this case, since the same standard operator model 8b is used for both the specified cargo handling time p2 and the quasi-specified cargo handling time p5, p2 = p5 and no time difference occurs. Therefore, it is unnecessary to calculate the quasi-specified cargo handling time p5, and the control mechanism 7 may be configured without a second calculation unit 14. In this embodiment, the control mechanism 7 can use the actual cargo handling time p1 and the specified cargo handling time p2 to detect delays due to mechanical factors, environmental factors, or unknown factors.

[0047] The standard operator model 8b can be improved by referencing the cargo handling operations of a skilled operator (hereinafter sometimes referred to as improvement step S70). Improvement step S70 first disables the automatic operation of the cargo handling equipment 2 and measures the actual cargo handling time p1 based on the operations of a skilled operator. In parallel, the control mechanism 7 calculates the specified cargo handling time p2 using the standard operator model 8b. If the value of the actual cargo handling time p1 is smaller than the value of the specified cargo handling time p2, the standard operator model 8b is improved by referencing the cargo handling operations of a skilled operator. Specifically, the path taken when the skilled operator moves the lifting device 6 and the input values ​​from the operating rod are incorporated into the standard operator model 8b.

[0048] Standard operator model 8b is designed to balance reducing loading / unloading time with ensuring safety during loading / unloading operations. If safety is prioritized too much, the stipulated loading / unloading time p2 may be shorter than the actual loading / unloading time p1. This configuration allows for optimization of the balance between loading / unloading time reduction and safety in standard operator model 8b through improvement step S70, based on the loading / unloading work of skilled operators. This is advantageous for improving loading / unloading efficiency while ensuring safety. [Explanation of Symbols]

[0049] 1. Evaluation System 2. Cargo handling equipment 3. Storage Area 4 Chassis 5 containers 6 Hanging equipment 6a Trolley 7 Control mechanism 8 Memory section 8a Equipment Model 8b Standard Operator Model 9 First calculation section 10 Comparison Section 11 Output section 12 Communication Organizations 13 Acquisition mechanism 14 Second calculation section x transverse direction z Vertical direction p1 Actual loading and unloading time p2 Standard loading and unloading time p3 environmental information p4 Input signal p5 Standard loading and unloading time S10 First calculation step S20 Comparison Steps S30 Output Step S40 Second calculation step S50 Second Comparison Step S60 Third Comparison Step S70 Improvement Steps

Claims

1. An evaluation system for evaluating the operation of a material handling device by comparing the actual material handling time required for the material handling device to perform the work with a specified material handling time that the material handling device virtually requires for the work, An evaluation system comprising a control mechanism, the control mechanism having a storage unit that stores a device model that virtually reflects the performance of the cargo handling equipment and a standard operator model that virtually reflects the instructions sent from the operator to the cargo handling equipment; a first calculation unit that calculates the specified cargo handling time using the device model and the standard operator model; a comparison unit that compares the actual cargo handling time with the specified cargo handling time; and an output unit that outputs the results obtained by the comparison unit.

2. The aforementioned cargo handling equipment is equipped with an acquisition mechanism that acquires environmental information when performing cargo handling operations. The evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the first calculation unit is configured to calculate the specified loading and unloading time using the equipment model, the standard operator model, and the environmental information.

3. The control mechanism has a second calculation unit that calculates a quasi-specified loading time using the input signal input by the operator to the loading equipment and the equipment model. The evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the comparison unit has a configuration that compares the quasi-specified loading time with the actual loading time.

4. The control mechanism has a second calculation unit that calculates a quasi-specified loading time using the input signal input by the operator to the loading equipment and the equipment model. The evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the comparison unit has a configuration that compares the quasi-specified loading time with the specified loading time.

5. The evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the comparison unit is configured to divide the cargo handling process into a plurality of sub-processes and perform a comparison for each of the sub-processes.

6. An evaluation method for evaluating the operation of a material handling device by comparing the actual material handling time required for the material handling device to perform the work with a specified material handling time that the material handling device virtually requires for the work, A first calculation step for calculating the specified cargo handling time using a machine model that virtually reflects the performance of the cargo handling equipment and a standard operator model that virtually reflects the instructions sent from the operator to the cargo handling equipment, A comparison step of comparing the actual loading and unloading time with the specified loading and unloading time, An evaluation method characterized by comprising an output step that outputs the results obtained in the comparison step.

7. The evaluation method according to claim 6, wherein the first calculation step is configured to calculate the specified cargo handling time using environmental information when the cargo handling equipment performs cargo handling work, in addition to the equipment model and the standard operator model.

8. A second calculation step involves calculating a quasi-specified loading time using the input signal input by the operator to the loading / unloading equipment and the equipment model, The evaluation method according to claim 6, further comprising a second comparison step of comparing the quasi-specified loading time with the actual loading time.

9. A second calculation step involves calculating a quasi-specified loading time using the input signal input by the operator to the loading / unloading equipment and the equipment model, The evaluation method according to claim 6, further comprising a third comparison step of comparing the quasi-specified loading time with the specified loading time.

10. The evaluation method according to any one of claims 6 to 9, wherein the comparison step is configured to divide the cargo handling process into a plurality of sub-processes and perform a comparison for each of the sub-processes.

Images