Failure occurence site and cause presentation apparatus, failure occurence site and cause presentation system, and failure occurence site and cause presentation method

Abstract

A failure occurrence site and cause presentation apparatus (101) comprises: a storage unit (120) that stores a development information database (102), in which past development information of the development organization of a device used in a distributed monitoring control system (200) is stored, and a failure model (103), which is generated using the development information as data and an occurrence site and an occurrence cause of a failure in the distributed monitoring control system (200) as well as a handling method for the failure as labels; an occurrence site estimation unit (105) that uses failure information (112) and the failure model (103) to estimate a site where a failure, such as a device fault, has occurred; an occurrence cause estimation unit (106) that uses the failure information (112) and the failure model (103) to estimate the cause of the failure that occurred; a handling method estimation unit (107) that uses the failure information (112), the failure model (103), the failure site, and the failure cause to estimate a method for handling the failure and generate handling instructions; and a presentation unit (108) that presents the handling instructions.

Description

Fault location cause presentation device, fault location cause presentation system, and fault location cause presentation method

[0001] The present disclosure relates to a fault occurrence location and cause presentation device, a fault occurrence location and cause presentation system, and a fault occurrence location and cause presentation method used in a test using multiple devices.

[0002] Conventionally, the state of equipment mounted on train cars has been monitored to detect abnormalities at an early stage. For example, Patent Document 1 discloses a technology for monitoring the state of braking devices mounted on railway cars and performing highly accurate diagnosis.

[0003] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2019-022306

[0004] Monitoring the status of equipment installed on railway vehicles is carried out not only during normal train operation, but also during combination tests and durability tests in which various pieces of equipment are installed and operated on actual railway vehicles during the development stage of railway vehicles.In addition, if a fault occurs during such tests, the cause of the fault is analyzed and the cause and countermeasures are presented.

[0005] When developing large-scale systems such as trains consisting of multiple railway vehicles, railway vehicle development organizations generally do not manufacture all of the equipment installed on the multiple railway vehicles in-house, but rather outsource development and manufacturing to multiple organizations depending on the equipment. Furthermore, railway vehicle development organizations often do not develop everything at a single site, but rather conduct development across multiple sites, such as offshore development. When testing large-scale distributed monitoring and control systems such as railway vehicles, which are composed of equipment, software, and other development elements developed by multiple sites and organizations, multiple factors can be intertwined, making it difficult to identify the location, cause, and solution of a failure, compared to testing systems composed of elements developed by a single organization.

[0006] The present disclosure has been made in consideration of the above, and aims to provide a fault location and cause presentation device that can present the location, cause, and countermeasures when a fault occurs in an environment where testing is performed using multiple devices, including devices located in different locations.

[0007] In order to solve the above-mentioned problems and achieve the object, the fault occurrence location cause presentation device of the present disclosure is characterized by comprising: a development information database in which past development information of development organizations for devices used in a distributed monitoring and control system that performs testing using a plurality of devices including devices in different locations is stored; a memory unit in which a fault model is stored, which is a model generated using development information extracted from the development information database as data and labels indicating the location, cause, and countermeasure for a fault that has occurred in the distributed monitoring and control system; a fault location estimation unit that uses the fault information indicating the content of a fault that has occurred in the distributed monitoring and control system and the fault model to estimate the location of the fault indicated by the fault information; a fault cause estimation unit that uses the fault information and the fault model to estimate the cause of the fault indicated by the fault information; a countermeasure method estimation unit that uses the fault information, the fault model, the location, and the cause to estimate a countermeasure for the fault indicated by the fault information, and generates a countermeasure instruction including the location, cause, and countermeasure; and a presentation unit that presents the countermeasure instruction.

[0008] The fault occurrence location and cause presentation device of the present disclosure has the effect of being able to present the location, cause, and countermeasures when a fault occurs in an environment where testing is performed using multiple devices, including devices in different locations.

[0009] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of a test system according to the first embodiment. FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an example of development information stored in a company A development information database provided in a failure location cause presentation system according to the first embodiment. FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing the operation of a failure location cause presentation device according to the first embodiment. FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of a processing circuit of a failure location cause presentation system according to the first embodiment when the processing circuit is realized by a processor and a memory. FIG. 5 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of a processing circuit of a failure location cause presentation system according to the first embodiment when the processing circuit is realized by dedicated hardware. FIG. 6 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of a test system according to the second embodiment.

[0010] Hereinafter, a failure location and cause presentation device, a failure location and cause presentation system, and a failure location and cause presentation method according to embodiments of the present disclosure will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0011] First Embodiment. FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an example configuration of a test system 300 according to a first embodiment. The test system 300 includes a fault location and cause presentation system 100 and a distributed monitoring and control system 200. When a test is performed on a combination of multiple devices that are components of the distributed monitoring and control system 200 and a fault occurs, the test system 300 uses the fault location and cause presentation system 100 to estimate the location, cause, and remedy of the fault that occurred in the distributed monitoring and control system 200 and present instructions for remedying the fault. Examples of faults include, but are not limited to, device malfunctions and abnormal device operation. Communication between the fault location and cause presentation system 100 and the distributed monitoring and control system 200 may be wireless communication, or, if a wired connection is possible, wired communication.

[0012] The distributed monitoring and control system 200 is a railway vehicle used in trains, and tests equipment to be installed in the railway vehicle during the development stage, etc. As shown in Fig. 1 , the distributed monitoring and control system 200 includes a control device 201, a brake 202, an air conditioner 203, a recording unit 204, a door control device 205, a display 206, and a monitoring camera 207.

[0013] The control device 201 monitors the distributed monitoring and control system 200, i.e., the state of the railway vehicle and the state of the equipment installed on the railway vehicle. If a failure occurs in any of the equipment, the control device 201 notifies the failure location and cause presentation system 100 of failure information 112. The control device 201 is, for example, a TCMS (Train Control Management System).

[0014] Brakes 202, air conditioners 203, recording units 204, door control devices 205, displays 206, and surveillance cameras 207 are devices installed in distributed monitoring and control system 200, i.e., on railway vehicles. Here, it is assumed that brakes 202, air conditioners 203, and recording units 204 are manufactured by the company itself, i.e., the railway vehicle development organization, door control devices 205 are manufactured by Company C, displays 206 are manufactured by Company B, and surveillance cameras 207 are manufactured by Company A. Furthermore, brakes 202, air conditioners 203, recording units 204, door control devices 205, displays 206, and surveillance cameras 207 are not all installed in one location, but rather some devices are distributed and installed in different locations. In other words, distributed monitoring and control system 200 is a system that performs tests across multiple bases, multiple organizations, etc., using multiple devices, including devices located in different locations. 1, devices such as brakes 202 are shown as targets of testing in the distributed monitoring and control system 200, but the targets are not limited to these. Targets of testing in the distributed monitoring and control system 200 may also include development elements such as software.

[0015] The multiple locations and organizations include organizations geographically distant from the railway vehicle development organization, such as overseas vendors, and locations or organizations that use different languages ​​for communication. Equipment from geographically distant organizations is connected to other equipment via, for example, a fifth-generation mobile communication system or a dedicated communication line. In the example of FIG. 1 , three companies, Company A, Company B, and Company C, are included in addition to the railway vehicle development organization. However, the number of companies other than the railway vehicle development organization may be four or more. In the test system 300, the fault location and cause presentation system 100 is assumed to be deployed at a single location within the main railway vehicle development organization. In the following description, locations within the same organization as the main railway vehicle development organization but located separately from the main railway vehicle development organization that develop and manufacture equipment, as well as companies, corporations, and organizations that develop and manufacture equipment outside the railway vehicle development organization, may be collectively referred to as the equipment development organization.

[0016] The failure location cause presentation system 100 is a system that presents the location, cause, and response method when a failure occurs in the distributed monitoring and control system 200, and is used by the development organization of the distributed monitoring and control system 200, i.e., the railway vehicle development organization. The failure location cause presentation system 100 may be an on-premise system or may be deployed on a cloud platform. As shown in FIG. 1 , the failure location cause presentation system 100 includes a failure location cause presentation device 101, a storage unit 121 in which a company A development information database 109 is stored, a storage unit 122 in which a company B development information database 110 is stored, and a storage unit 123 in which a company C development information database 111 is stored. The failure location cause presentation device 101 includes a storage unit 120 in which a development information database 102, a failure model 103, and a failure database 104 are stored, a failure location estimation unit 105, a failure cause estimation unit 106, a response method estimation unit 107, and a presentation unit 108. The storage units 120 to 123 may be configured as a single storage unit, or may be configured as a combination of several storage units.

[0017] The company A development information database 109, the company B development information database 110, and the company C development information database 111 are databases that store, for each corporation or base, information such as coupling compatibility, train type (e.g., commuter train or express train), type of compatible electrified section (e.g., DC train or AC train), equipment configuration, order history with each corporation, and fault information for models developed in the past by the development organization of the distributed monitoring and control system 200, i.e., the railway vehicle development organization. In other words, the company A development information database 109, the company B development information database 110, and the company C development information database 111 are development information databases for each development organization in which past development information for the development organizations of the equipment used in the distributed monitoring and control system 200 is stored for each development organization of the equipment.

[0018] FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of development information stored in the company A development information database 109 included in the failure location and cause presentation system 100 according to the first embodiment. The types of development information stored in the company A development information database 109, the company B development information database 110, and the company C development information database 111 are similar, so the company A development information database 109 will be used as an example for explanation. The development information includes responsible device information, past failure information, past case information, and the like. As shown in FIG. 2, the company A development information database 109 includes, as responsible device information, a device type indicating the type of device, SW (Software) information indicating the software used, HW (Hardware) information indicating the hardware used, and the like. Furthermore, the company A development information database 109 also includes, as past failure information, a failure location indicating the location where the failure occurred, a failure cause indicating the cause of the failure, and a recovery procedure indicating the action taken to resolve the failure when the failure occurred. Furthermore, the Company A development information database 109 includes, as past project information, train type indicating whether the train is a commuter train or an express train, the system configuration of the railway vehicle, and information indicating whether the vehicle is a DC or AC vehicle. In the past project information, the system configuration of the railway vehicle includes information such as the vehicle configuration, equipment configuration, vehicle orientation, and repetition on a vehicle-by-vehicle or equipment-by-equipment basis. Note that the information shown in FIG. 2 is an example, and the development information may also include other information.

[0019] Returning to the explanation of the failure location cause presentation system 100 shown in Fig. 1 , in the failure location cause presentation device 101 provided in the failure location cause presentation system 100, the development information database 102 is a database that stores development information extracted from the company A development information database 109, the company B development information database 110, and the company C development information database 111. The development information extracted from the company A development information database 109, the company B development information database 110, and the company C development information database 111 is the information shown in Fig. 2 and the like. In this way, the development information stored in the development information database 102 is extracted from one or more development organization-specific development information databases that store, for each development organization, past development information of the development organizations of the devices used in the distributed monitoring and control system 200.

[0020] The fault model 103 is a model generated using development information extracted from the development information database 102 as data and labels indicating the location, cause, and countermeasure for a fault that has occurred in the distributed monitoring and control system 200. The fault model 103 is generated using a learning model or the like before the fault location and cause presentation system 100 starts operation. In learning the fault model 103, traceability information of information such as the location where the software configuration changes when changes are made to the equipment configuration, equipment layout, vehicle layout, line, train type, repetitive patterns per vehicle or per device, etc. in a train formation made up of multiple railway cars may be learned.

[0021] The fault database 104 is a database that stores fault information 112 that indicates the details of a fault that has occurred in the distributed monitoring and control system 200 and that is acquired from the distributed monitoring and control system 200 .

[0022] The failure location estimation unit 105 estimates the location of the failure indicated by the failure information 112 using the failure information 112 stored in the failure database 104 and the failure model 103 .

[0023] The cause estimation unit 106 estimates the cause of a failure indicated by the failure information 112, using the failure information 112 stored in the failure database 104 and the failure model 103. Note that the cause estimation unit 106 may estimate the cause of a failure indicated by the failure information 112, using the failure information 112 stored in the failure database 104, the failure model 103, and the failure location estimated by the failure location estimation unit 105.

[0024] The countermeasure estimation unit 107 estimates a countermeasure for the fault indicated in the fault information 112, using the fault information 112 stored in the fault database 104, the fault model 103, the fault location estimated by the fault location estimation unit 105, and the fault cause estimated by the fault cause estimation unit 106. The countermeasure includes, for example, the content of a procedure and a procedure for resolving the fault indicated in the fault information 112. As a response to the fault indicated in the fault information 112, the countermeasure estimation unit 107 generates a countermeasure instruction including the fault location estimated by the fault location estimation unit 105, the fault cause estimated by the fault cause estimation unit 106, and the estimated countermeasure.

[0025] The presentation unit 108 presents the countermeasure instruction generated by the countermeasure estimation unit 107. Specifically, the presentation unit 108 notifies the distributed monitoring and control system 200 of the countermeasure instruction generated by the countermeasure estimation unit 107 as a response to the fault information 112 acquired from the distributed monitoring and control system 200. This allows the fault location and cause presentation device 101 to present the location, cause, and countermeasure when a fault occurs in an environment where a test is performed using multiple devices in different locations, i.e., in the distributed monitoring and control system 200. A tester or other person in charge of the distributed monitoring and control system 200 who has confirmed the countermeasure instruction can recover from the fault in accordance with the countermeasure, while understanding the location and cause of the fault. The presentation unit 108 may display the countermeasure instruction generated by the countermeasure estimation unit 107 to a user of the fault location and cause presentation device 101 on a display device (not shown), transmit it to a designated terminal, print it on paper, or output it to a designated storage medium.

[0026] 3 is a flowchart showing the operation of the failure location cause presentation device 101 according to the first embodiment. When a failure occurs in the distributed monitoring and control system 200, the failure location cause presentation device 101 acquires, from the distributed monitoring and control system 200, failure information 112 indicating the details of the failure that occurred in the distributed monitoring and control system 200 (step ST101). When some kind of failure occurs in the distributed monitoring and control system 200, the distributed monitoring and control system 200 notifies the failure location cause presentation device 101 of the failure information 112. When a communication unit (not shown) of the failure location cause presentation device 101 receives, i.e., acquires, the failure information 112 notified from the distributed monitoring and control system 200, the failure location cause presentation device 101 stores the failure information 112 in the failure database 104.

[0027] Here, it is desirable that the information included in the fault information 112 corresponds to development information stored in the aforementioned Company A development information database 109 or the like. The fault information 112 may consist solely of information acquired by the control device 201 of the distributed monitoring and control system 200 from the equipment in which the fault occurred, or may include text information input by a tester of the distributed monitoring and control system 200. Note that the types and locations of the equipment connected to the distributed monitoring and control system 200, the expected train type, the system configuration, and the like are not changed during testing. Therefore, the control device 201 of the distributed monitoring and control system 200 may notify the fault location cause presentation device 101 of information that will not change during testing only once after the start of testing in the distributed monitoring and control system 200. Furthermore, the user of the fault location cause presentation device 101 may acquire the information that will not change during testing and set it in the fault location cause presentation device 101 before the start of testing in the distributed monitoring and control system 200.

[0028] The fault location estimation unit 105 estimates the location of the fault indicated by the fault information 112, using the fault information 112 stored in the fault database 104 and the fault model 103 (step ST102). The cause estimation unit 106 estimates the cause of the fault indicated by the fault information 112, using the fault information 112 and the fault model 103 stored in the fault database 104 (step ST103). As described above, the cause estimation unit 106 may estimate the cause of the fault indicated by the fault information 112, using the fault information 112 stored in the fault database 104, the fault model 103, and the fault location estimated by the fault location estimation unit 105. The countermeasure estimation unit 107 estimates the countermeasure for the fault indicated by the fault information 112, using the fault information 112 stored in the fault database 104, the fault model 103, the fault location estimated by the fault location estimation unit 105, and the cause estimated by the cause estimation unit 106 (step ST104). The countermeasure estimation unit 107 generates a countermeasure instruction including the occurrence location estimated by the occurrence location estimation unit 105, the occurrence cause estimated by the occurrence cause estimation unit 106, and the estimated countermeasure (step ST105). The presentation unit 108 presents the countermeasure instruction generated by the countermeasure estimation unit 107 (step ST106).

[0029] In this embodiment, the failure location cause presentation device 101 is assumed to present one response instruction for one acquired failure information 112, but this is not limiting. For example, when a failure occurs, multiple failure locations may be considered. Furthermore, multiple causes may be considered for the failure. Different failure locations and causes may necessitate different response methods, and therefore different final response instructions. Therefore, the failure location cause presentation device 101 can present multiple response instructions for one acquired failure information 112. That is, at least one of the failure location estimation unit 105, the failure cause estimation unit 106, and the response method estimation unit 107 may output multiple results as estimation results. In this case, the response method estimation unit 107 generates multiple response instructions based on the multiple results. Furthermore, the presentation unit 108 may display the multiple response instructions generated by the response method estimation unit 107 randomly or in a specified order. The specified order is, for example, the order in which the multiple response instructions are most likely to be true response instructions based on the scores obtained during estimation by the occurrence location estimation unit 105, the occurrence cause estimation unit 106, and the response method estimation unit 107, but is not limited to this.

[0030] Next, the hardware configuration of the fault occurrence location and cause presentation system 100 according to the first embodiment will be described. In the fault occurrence location and cause presentation system 100, the storage units 120 to 123 are memories. The fault occurrence location estimation unit 105, the fault occurrence cause estimation unit 106, the countermeasure estimation unit 107, and the presentation unit 108 are realized by processing circuits. The processing circuit may be a memory that stores a program and a processor that executes the program stored in the memory, or may be dedicated hardware. The processing circuit is also called a control circuit.

[0031] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of the configuration of the processing circuit 900 of the failure location cause presentation system 100 according to the first embodiment, when the processing circuit is realized by a processor 901 and a memory 902. The processing circuit 900 illustrated in FIG. 4 is a control circuit and includes a processor 901 and a memory 902. When the processing circuit 900 is configured with the processor 901 and the memory 902, each function of the processing circuit 900 is realized by software, firmware, or a combination of software and firmware. The software or firmware is written as a program and stored in the memory 902. The processor 901 reads and executes the program stored in the memory 902 to realize each function of the processing circuit 900. That is, the processing circuit 900 includes the memory 902 for storing a program that results in the processing of the failure location cause presentation system 100 being executed. This program can also be considered a program that causes the failure location cause presentation system 100 to execute each function realized by the processing circuit 900. This program may be provided by a storage medium on which the program is stored, or by other means such as a communication medium.

[0032] The program is provided in a failure location and cause presentation system (100) including a development information database (102) storing past development information of a development organization of equipment used in a distributed monitoring and control system (200) that performs testing using a plurality of equipment including equipment located in different locations, and a storage unit (120) storing a failure model (103) that is a model generated using development information extracted from the development information database (102) as data and labels indicating the location, cause, and countermeasure for a failure that has occurred in the distributed monitoring and control system (200), in which an occurrence location estimation unit (105) uses failure information (112) indicating the content of a failure that has occurred in the distributed monitoring and control system (200) and the failure model (103) to the fault location indication system 100 executes the following steps: an occurrence location estimation step in which the fault cause estimation unit 106 estimates the occurrence location of the fault indicated in the fault information 112 by using the fault information 112 and the fault model 103; a countermeasure estimation step in which the countermeasure estimation unit 107 estimates a countermeasure for the fault indicated in the fault information 112 by using the fault information 112, the fault model 103, the occurrence location, and the occurrence cause; a countermeasure instruction generation step in which the countermeasure estimation unit 107 generates a countermeasure instruction including the occurrence location, the cause, and the countermeasure; and a presentation step in which the presentation unit 108 presents the countermeasure instruction.

[0033] Here, the processor 901 is, for example, a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a processing device, an arithmetic unit, a microprocessor, a microcomputer, or a DSP (Digital Signal Processor), etc. Furthermore, the memory 902 is, for example, a non-volatile or volatile semiconductor memory such as a RAM (Random Access Memory), a ROM (Read Only Memory), a flash memory, an EPROM (Erasable Programmable ROM), or an EEPROM (Electrically EPROM), a magnetic disk, a flexible disk, an optical disk, a compact disk, a minidisk, or a DVD (Digital Versatile Disc).

[0034] 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of the configuration of the processing circuit 903 in the fault location and cause presentation system 100 according to the first embodiment, when the processing circuit is realized by dedicated hardware. The processing circuit 903 illustrated in FIG. 5 corresponds to, for example, a single circuit, a composite circuit, a programmed processor, a parallel programmed processor, an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), or a combination thereof. The processing circuit 903 may be partially realized by dedicated hardware and partially realized by software or firmware. In this way, the processing circuit 903 can realize each of the above-described functions by dedicated hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof.

[0035] As described above, according to this embodiment, the failure location cause presentation device 101 estimates the location of a failure using the failure information 112 and the failure model 103 acquired from the distributed monitoring and control system 200, estimates the cause of the failure using the failure information 112 and the failure model 103, estimates a method of dealing with the failure using the failure information 112, the failure model 103, the failure location, and the cause, and generates and presents a response instruction. The failure location cause presentation device 101 can present the location of the failure, the cause of the failure, and the response instruction when a failure occurs in an environment in which tests are performed using multiple devices in different locations, i.e., in the distributed monitoring and control system 200.

[0036] In a distributed monitoring and control system 200 spanning multiple bases, multiple corporations, multiple organizations, etc., the causes of failures that occur during system testing are correlated with factors such as the experience of past equipment personnel, the type of failure, the type of model, the type of train, etc., and these factors may be intricately intertwined. The failure location cause presentation device 101 extracts development information from a company A development information database 109, a company B development information database 110, a company C development information database 111, etc., in which information from model development accumulated in the company, i.e., by a railway vehicle development organization, is stored for each base or corporation, thereby making it possible to present the location of the failure, the cause of the failure, and a countermeasure that can address the fundamental cause of the failure, even in cases where multiple factors are intricately intertwined as described above.

[0037] Furthermore, in the fault occurrence location cause presentation device 101, a fault model 103, which is a learning model that utilizes development information stored in the company A development information database 109, the company B development information database 110, the company C development information database 111, etc., is constructed, which is expected to reduce the man-hours required for cause analysis. Furthermore, in a system configuration that is unique to train systems, such as the vehicle configuration, equipment configuration, vehicle orientation, and repetition on a vehicle-by-vehicle or equipment-by-equipment basis, the fault occurrence location cause presentation device 101 can identify the location of the fault at a desired granularity, taking into account the equipment-by-equipment or vehicle-by-vehicle basis, such as the number of the equipment in which the fault occurred on which car, and this is expected to reduce the man-hours required for identification work.

[0038] In the present embodiment, it is assumed that the distributed monitoring and control system 200 in the test system 300 is a railway vehicle and the fault location and cause presentation system 100 is used by the main development organization for the railway vehicle, but the use of the test system 300 is not limited to this. The test system 300 can also be applied to testing in the development stage of systems other than railway vehicles, as long as it is a system that performs testing using multiple devices, including devices located in different locations. Furthermore, the objects tested in the distributed monitoring and control system 200 are not limited to devices, but also include development elements such as software. The same applies to the test system of embodiment 2 described below.

[0039] Embodiment 2 In the first embodiment, a case has been described in which the failure location and cause presentation device 101 is able to estimate all of the location of the failure, the cause of the failure, and a countermeasure for the acquired failure information 112. In the second embodiment, a case will be described in which the failure location and cause presentation device is unable to estimate at least one of the location of the failure, the cause of the failure, and a countermeasure for the acquired failure information 112.

[0040] 6 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of a test system 300a according to the second embodiment. The test system 300a is obtained by replacing the failure location cause presentation system 100 of the test system 300 according to the first embodiment shown in FIG. 1 with the failure location cause presentation system 100a. The failure location cause presentation system 100a is obtained by adding a fault model re-learning unit 113 to the failure location cause presentation system 100 shown in FIG.

[0041] The fault model re-learning unit 113 re-learns the fault model 103 using the received feedback information when the score of the result estimated by at least one of the fault occurrence location estimation unit 105, the fault cause estimation unit 106, and the countermeasure method estimation unit 107 is equal to or lower than a specified threshold. Furthermore, the fault model re-learning unit 113 may re-learn the fault model 103 using the received feedback information when a countermeasure instruction is presented from the presentation unit 108 to the distributed monitoring and control system 200 or the like, but the content of the countermeasure instruction, i.e., at least one of the fault occurrence location, the fault cause, and the countermeasure method, is inappropriate. The fault model re-learning unit 113 receives feedback information from the user of the fault occurrence location and cause presentation device 101a, a tester of the distributed monitoring and control system 200, etc.

[0042] The person in charge of testing the distributed monitoring and control system 200 may create the feedback information using, for example, a control device or the control device 201 that operates each device in the distributed monitoring and control system 200, or may create the feedback information by selecting an answer to an inquiry displayed on the control device or the control device 201 that operates each device in the distributed monitoring and control system 200. Furthermore, when a user of the fault occurrence location cause presentation device 101a obtains feedback information from, for example, a tester of the distributed monitoring and control system 200, the fault model re-learning unit 113 may re-learn the fault model 103 using a function of an interactive system that learns by accepting, for example, an answer selection from the user of the fault occurrence location cause presentation device 101a.

[0043] 7 is a flowchart showing the operation of the fault location cause presentation device 101a according to the second embodiment. When a fault occurs in the distributed monitoring and control system 200, the fault location cause presentation device 101a acquires fault information 112 indicating the details of the fault from the distributed monitoring and control system 200 (step ST101). The fault location estimation unit 105 estimates the fault location indicated by the fault information 112 using the fault information 112 stored in the fault database 104 and the fault model 103 (step ST102). If the estimated score of the fault location estimated by the fault location estimation unit 105 is equal to or less than a specified threshold (step ST201: No), the fault model re-learning unit 113 receives feedback information from a tester of the distributed monitoring and control system 200 or the like (step ST202). The fault model re-learning unit 113 uses the received feedback information to learn the fault location in the fault model 103 (step ST203) and update the fault model 103.

[0044] If the estimated score of the fault location estimated by the fault location estimation unit 105 is greater than a specified threshold (step ST201: Yes), or after the fault model re-learning unit 113 performs the operation of step ST203, the fault cause estimation unit 106 uses the fault information 112 stored in the fault database 104 and the fault model 103 to estimate the cause of the fault indicated by the fault information 112 (step ST103). If the estimated score of the fault cause estimated by the fault cause estimation unit 106 is equal to or less than a specified threshold (step ST204: No), the fault model re-learning unit 113 receives feedback information from a tester of the distributed monitoring and control system 200 or the like (step ST205). The fault model re-learning unit 113 uses the received feedback information to learn the cause of the fault in the fault model 103 (step ST206) and updates the fault model 103.

[0045] If the cause estimation unit 106 estimates the cause of a fault and the estimated score of the resulting cause is greater than a specified threshold (step ST204: Yes), or after the fault model re-learning unit 113 performs the operation of step ST206, the countermeasure estimation unit 107 estimates a countermeasure for the fault indicated by the fault information 112 using the fault information 112 stored in the fault database 104, the fault model 103, the fault location estimated by the fault location estimation unit 105, and the fault cause estimated by the cause estimation unit 106 (step ST104). If the countermeasure estimation unit 107 estimates the countermeasure for the fault and the estimated score of the countermeasure is equal to or less than a specified threshold (step ST207: No), the fault model re-learning unit 113 receives feedback information from a tester of the distributed monitoring and control system 200 or the like (step ST208). The fault model re-learning unit 113 uses the received feedback information to learn the countermeasure in the fault model 103 (step ST209) and updates the fault model 103.

[0046] If the countermeasure estimation unit 107 estimates a countermeasure for the fault and the estimated score of the obtained countermeasure is greater than a specified threshold (step ST207: Yes), or after the operation of step ST209 by the fault model re-learning unit 113, the countermeasure estimation unit 107 generates a countermeasure instruction including the occurrence location estimated by the occurrence location estimation unit 105, the occurrence cause estimated by the occurrence cause estimation unit 106, and the estimated countermeasure (step ST105). The presentation unit 108 presents the countermeasure instruction generated by the countermeasure estimation unit 107 (step ST106).

[0047] The specified threshold values ​​used in steps ST201, ST204, and ST207 may be the same or different values, and may be changed as appropriate based on received feedback information, etc.

[0048] The hardware configuration of the fault occurrence location cause presentation system 100a will be described. In the fault occurrence location cause presentation system 100a, the fault model re-learning unit 113 is realized by a processing circuit. The processing circuit may be a memory that stores a program and a processor that executes the program stored in the memory, or it may be dedicated hardware.

[0049] As described above, according to this embodiment, the failure location cause presentation device 101a re-learns the failure model 103 using the received feedback information when at least one of the score when estimating the failure location, the score when estimating the cause of the failure, and the score when estimating the method of dealing with the failure is equal to or less than a specified threshold. Furthermore, the failure location cause presentation device 101a presents a response instruction to the distributed monitoring and control system 200 or the like, but if the response instruction is inappropriate, the failure location cause presentation device 101a re-learns the failure model 103 using the received feedback information. As a result, the failure location cause presentation device 101a can re-learn the failure model 103 as appropriate, thereby more accurately estimating the failure location, the cause of the failure, and the method of dealing with the failure than the failure location cause presentation device 101 of the first embodiment.

[0050] As described above, in distributed monitoring and control system 200 spanning multiple bases, multiple corporations, multiple organizations, etc., the causes of failures that occur during system testing correlate with factors such as experience, such as past performance records of those in charge of equipment, the type of failure, the type of model, the type of train, etc., but change due to changes in the required specifications, changes in the responsible organization, changes in the base, etc. Fault location cause presentation device 101 extracts development information from company A development information database 109, company B development information database 110, company C development information database 111, etc., in which information on model development previously accumulated within the company, i.e., the railway vehicle development organization, is stored for each base or corporation, and when a change occurs, re-learns fault model 103, thereby making it possible to present the location of the failure, the cause of the failure, and a countermeasure that can deal with the fundamental cause of the failure, even when the required specifications, the responsible organization, the base, etc. are changed.

[0051] The configurations shown in the above embodiments are merely examples, and may be combined with other known technologies, or different embodiments may be combined with each other. It is also possible to omit or modify parts of the configurations as long as they do not deviate from the gist of the invention.

[0052] 100, 100a Fault occurrence location cause presentation system, 101, 101a Fault occurrence location cause presentation device, 102 Development information database, 103 Fault model, 104 Fault database, 105 Occurrence location estimation unit, 106 Occurrence cause estimation unit, 107 Countermeasure method estimation unit, 108 Presentation unit, 109 Company A development information database, 110 Company B development information database, 111 Company C development information database, 112 Fault information, 113 Fault model re-learning unit, 120, 121, 122, 123 Memory unit, 200 Distributed monitoring and control system, 201 Control device, 202 Brake, 203 Air conditioner, 204 Recording unit, 205 Door control device, 206 Display, 207 Monitoring camera, 300, 300a Test system, 900, 903 Processing circuit, 901 Processor, 902 Memory.

Claims

1. A development information database that stores past development information of the development organizations of the devices used in a distributed monitoring and control system that conducts tests using a plurality of devices located at different locations, and development information extracted from the development information database as data, and a storage unit that stores a failure model, which is a model generated using the location of occurrence, cause of occurrence, and countermeasure method for the failures that occurred in the distributed monitoring and control system as labels, A failure information indicating the content of the failure that occurred in the distributed monitoring and control system, and a location-of-occurrence estimation unit that estimates the location of occurrence of the failure indicated by the failure information using the failure model, A cause-of-occurrence estimation unit that estimates the cause of occurrence of the failure indicated by the failure information using the failure information and the failure model, A countermeasure-method estimation unit that estimates a countermeasure method for the failure indicated by the failure information using the failure information, the failure model, the location of occurrence, and the cause of occurrence, and generates a countermeasure instruction including the location of occurrence, the cause of occurrence, and the countermeasure method, A presentation unit that presents the countermeasure instruction, A failure location and cause presentation device, characterized by comprising the above.

2. At least one of the location-of-occurrence estimation unit, the cause-of-occurrence estimation unit, and the countermeasure-method estimation unit outputs a plurality of results as estimation results, The countermeasure-method estimation unit generates a plurality of the countermeasure instructions based on the plurality of the results, The failure location and cause presentation device according to Claim 1, characterized by the above.

3. The presentation unit presents the plurality of the countermeasure instructions in a specified order, The failure location and cause presentation device according to Claim 2, characterized by the above.

4. The development information stored in the development information database is extracted from one or more development-organization-specific development information databases in which the past development information of the development organizations of the devices used in the distributed monitoring and control system is stored for each of the development organizations of the devices, The failure location and cause presentation device according to any one of Claims 1 to 3, characterized by the above.

5. In at least one of the location-of-occurrence estimation unit, the cause-of-occurrence estimation unit, and the countermeasure-method estimation unit, when the score of the estimated result is equal to or lower than a specified threshold value, a failure model re-learning unit that re-learns the failure model using the received feedback information, The failure location and cause presentation device according to any one of Claims 1 to 3, characterized by comprising the above.

6. The failure location cause presentation device according to any one of Claims 1 to 3, and a storage unit storing one or more development organization-by-development information databases in which past development information of the development organizations of the devices used in a distributed monitoring control system that conducts tests using a plurality of devices including devices at different locations is stored for each of the development organizations of the devices; A failure location cause presentation system characterized by comprising the same.

7. A failure location cause presentation method of a failure location cause presentation device, comprising: The failure location cause presentation device includes a development information database storing past development information of the development organizations of the devices used in a distributed monitoring control system that conducts tests using a plurality of devices including devices at different locations, and a failure model generated using the development information extracted from the development information database as data and the location of occurrence, cause of occurrence, and countermeasure method for a failure occurring in the distributed monitoring control system as labels, and a storage unit storing the same; a failure location estimation step in which a failure location estimation unit estimates the location of occurrence of a failure indicated by the failure information using the failure information indicating the details of the failure occurring in the distributed monitoring control system and the failure model; a failure cause estimation step in which a failure cause estimation unit estimates the cause of occurrence of the failure indicated by the failure information using the failure information and the failure model; a countermeasure method estimation step in which a countermeasure method estimation unit estimates a countermeasure method for the failure indicated by the failure information using the failure information, the failure model, the location of occurrence, and the cause of occurrence; a countermeasure instruction generation step in which the countermeasure method estimation unit generates a countermeasure instruction including the location of occurrence, the cause of occurrence, and the countermeasure method; a presentation step in which a presentation unit presents the countermeasure instruction; A failure location cause presentation method characterized by including the same.

8. In the failure location estimation step, at least one of the failure location estimation unit, in the failure cause estimation step, the failure cause estimation unit, and in the countermeasure method estimation step, the countermeasure method estimation unit outputs a plurality of results as estimation results, In the countermeasure instruction generation step, the countermeasure method estimation unit generates a plurality of the countermeasure instructions based on the plurality of the results; The failure location cause presentation method according to Claim 7, characterized by the same.

9. In the presenting step, the presenting unit presents the plurality of the countermeasure instructions in a prescribed order. The method for presenting the cause of the failure occurrence location according to claim 8, characterized by the above.

10. The development information stored in the development information database is extracted from one or more development organization-specific development information databases in which the past development information of the development organization of the device used in the distributed monitoring and control system is stored for each development organization of the device. The method for presenting the cause of the failure occurrence location according to any one of claims 7 to 9, characterized by the above.

11. A failure model re-learning step in which the failure model re-learning unit re-learns the failure model using the received feedback information when the score of the result obtained by estimation in at least one of the occurrence location estimation unit, the occurrence cause estimation unit, and the countermeasure method estimation unit is equal to or lower than a prescribed threshold value. The method for presenting the cause of the failure occurrence location according to any one of claims 7 to 9, characterized by including the above.