Autonomous Placement of Fire Detectors in Building Models

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The manual placement of elements like fire detectors and fire alarm devices in building plans is complex, time-consuming, and prone to errors, requiring expert intervention to ensure compliance with various rules and standards, which can be inefficient and costly.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method that receives input data including elements to be placed and conditions, determines valid and invalid regions within an input model, and allows autonomous placement using VR or AR, providing direct visual feedback on compliance with rules, thus reducing the need for expert knowledge and minimizing errors.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual placement of elements is performed by a specialist, then compliance with rules and standards is ensured, but the process becomes complex and time-consuming

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecompliance with rules and standardsVSAvoidtime-consuming process
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs automatic self-verification of placement rules and standards without requiring expert intervention. The computing unit autonomously checks multiple conditions (distance to walls, detection area coverage, overlap with other elements) and determines valid placement areas, enabling the system to serve itself in verifying compliance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The manual mechanical process of specialist verification is replaced by an automated computing system that uses algorithms to evaluate placement conditions. The system substitutes human expertise with computational logic that automatically processes geometric relationships and rule compliance checks.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Manufacturing precision

If manual placement is performed in several passes with verification, then placement accuracy is improved, but productivity decreases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveplacement accuracyVSAvoidplacement efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary determination of valid placement areas before actual element placement. By pre-calculating all constraints (distance rules, detection coverage, overlap prevention) and identifying acceptable placement zones in advance, the system eliminates the need for iterative trial-and-error placement passes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system provides immediate visual feedback through VR/AR display showing valid and invalid placement areas in real-time. This feedback mechanism guides the user to correct placements without requiring multiple review passes, as the system continuously updates placement validity information during the interaction.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Reliability

If expert knowledge is required for placement, then reliability of compliance is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecompliance reliabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The computing unit acts as an intermediary between the user and the complex rule system. It encapsulates the complexity of multiple placement rules, standards, and geometric constraints within its processing logic, presenting a simplified interface to the user while maintaining comprehensive compliance verification internally.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system integrates multiple functions into a single automated process: geometric constraint checking, rule verification, valid area calculation, and visual feedback provision. This multi-functional approach consolidates what would otherwise require multiple separate expert operations into one unified system.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

4Reliability

If building plans are reviewed and approved by a certifying body, then reliability is improved, but loss of time increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveapproval reliabilityVSAvoidapproval time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-approval by automatically verifying compliance with all applicable rules and standards before placement is finalized. The computing unit acts as its own certifying body, eliminating the need for external review processes while maintaining comprehensive compliance checking across all placement conditions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Data Source

PatentEP3640767B1Method for determining at least one area in at least one input model for at least one element to be placed
Publication Date: 2024.09.11 SIEMENS SCHWEIZ AG
  • EP3640767B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3640767B1 patent drawingFigure 2~3

AI summary

The invention relates to a method for determining at least one region in at least one input model for at least one element to be placed, comprising the steps of receiving an input data set comprising the at least one element to be placed, a plurality of conditions, and the at least one input model; determining at least one associated condition from the plurality of conditions; and determining at least one valid and/or invalid region of the at least one input model depending on the associated condition; wherein the at least one valid region at least partially satisfies the associated condition. Furthermore, the invention relates to a corresponding computing unit and computer program product.