JP7809979B2 - Inspection result output device, inspection result output method, and inspection result output program - Google Patents

Description

The present invention relates to an inspection result output device, an inspection result output method, and an inspection result output program that output inspection results for electrical equipment, etc.

2. Description of the Related Art In recent years, various systems have been proposed to assist in periodic inspections of electrical equipment and the like in order to facilitate the inspection.
For example, Patent Document 1 discloses a system that supports the determination of the content of measures to be taken when an abnormality is discovered during inspection work. The content of measures determined by the inspector is recorded in a database together with the inspection results.

Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2019-16079

Even before the use of the above-mentioned systems made it possible to create inspection reports electronically, the results of each periodic inspection were reported to the owner of the electrical equipment. If any abnormalities were found, the owner was also notified.
The reason for regular inspections is that the electrical equipment being inspected has the characteristic that the scope and scale of damage will be large if an accident occurs. Therefore, if an abnormality is discovered early during a regular inspection, it is desirable to take measures as quickly as possible to prevent an accident from occurring.

Generally, the cost of addressing an abnormality is borne by the owner. For example, if repairs are recommended as a solution to a discovered abnormality, the owner will bear the cost of those repairs. However, if the electrical equipment is currently operating without repairs, the owner will have little motivation to make repairs even if it involves a cost. Even if the owner is urged to make repairs after a report of an abnormality is discovered, the reality is that it takes a long time for the repairs to actually be carried out.

The system described above is thought to be able to report recommended actions to the owner, but even if such a report were made, it would be the same as previous reports and would not lead to any improvement in the situation.
Therefore, an object of the present invention is to support rapid measures to be taken for abnormal equipment when an abnormality is found in equipment of a facility during inspection work.

An inspection result output device according to one embodiment of the present invention comprises an abnormal equipment extraction unit, an accident information acquisition unit, a damage estimation unit, and an output unit. The abnormal equipment extraction unit references the results of multiple inspections performed on multiple pieces of equipment installed in a facility and extracts abnormal equipment determined to be abnormal from the multiple pieces of equipment. The accident information acquisition unit acquires multiple pieces of accident information. The multiple pieces of accident information are associated with multiple accidents that have occurred in the past on equipment of the same type as the equipment on which the inspection work was performed. Each piece of accident information includes at least the amount of damage caused by the accident. The damage estimation unit references the multiple pieces of accident information and estimates the estimated amount of damage that could occur if the abnormal equipment is left in an abnormal state. The output unit outputs the estimated amount of damage along with the multiple inspection results.

The "amount of damage" in the accident information and the "estimated amount of damage" estimated by the inspection result output device include the amount of direct damage and the amount of secondary damage (damage to image, decreased sales, stock price crash, etc.).
According to the above configuration, when there is an abnormal device that is determined to be out of normal condition, accident information associated with accidents that have occurred in the past is referenced, and the estimated amount of damage that may occur if the abnormal device is left as is is estimated.

The estimated damage amount is output along with the inspection results, and the owner can be informed of the economic risk that may arise from ignoring the abnormality. This makes it easier to convince the owner that it is not a good idea to leave the equipment unattended, even if it is currently operational, and that action should be taken.
This helps to take prompt action against abnormal equipment.
The accident information may include the type of the causative device that caused the accident. The damage estimation unit may extract, from the multiple pieces of accident information, multiple pieces of identical device case information in which the type of the causative device is the same as the abnormal device. The damage estimation unit may estimate the estimated amount of damage by referring to the multiple pieces of identical device case information.

According to the above configuration, the estimated damage amount is estimated based on cases in which the same type of equipment as the abnormal equipment was the cause of an accident, thereby improving the accuracy of the estimated damage amount.
The damage estimation unit may estimate the estimated amount of damage when the number of extracted identical device case information pieces is equal to or greater than a predetermined value.
According to the above configuration, when referring to cases where equipment of the same type as the abnormal equipment was the cause of an accident, the estimated amount of damage is reported to the owner only if there are more than a predetermined number of cases. Because the estimated amount of damage is estimated based on a larger amount of data, the reliability of the information reported to the owner can be maintained high.

The accident information may include equipment-related information related to the causative equipment and environment-related information related to the installation environment of the equipment where the accident occurred. The damage estimation unit may refer to the equipment-related information and environment-related information for each piece of equipment case information and calculate the degree of match with the state of the abnormal equipment. The damage estimation unit may determine that the estimated damage amount estimated based on accident information with a high degree of match is the information that should be output preferentially by the output unit.

According to the above configuration, from among multiple past accidents, cases that have a high degree of match with the abnormality discovered in the current inspection work are extracted in light of both the viewpoint of the equipment and the viewpoint of the facility installation environment. Since the estimated amount of damage is estimated from such cases, the accuracy of the estimated amount of damage is improved.
The equipment-related information may further include, in addition to the type of the causing equipment, at least one of the manufacturer of the causing equipment, the model of the causing equipment, and the number of years since the recommended replacement date of the causing equipment at the time of the accident.

According to the above configuration, it is possible to extract from multiple past accidents cases that have a high degree of match with the abnormality discovered during the current inspection work in light of various items related to the equipment. Since the estimated damage amount is estimated from such cases, the accuracy of the estimated damage amount is improved.
The damage estimation unit may estimate an estimated time when an accident may occur in the equipment for which the inspection work was performed, based on the number of years that have passed as part of the equipment-related information and the number of years that have passed since the recommended replacement date of the abnormal equipment at the time of the inspection work. The output unit may output the estimated time together with the estimated damage amount.

According to the above configuration, the owner can be informed of the future time when an accident is likely to occur, along with the estimated amount of damage. The owner can refer to the contents of this report and easily plan repair costs.
The environment-related information may include at least one of the regional characteristics of the facility where the equipment is installed, the surrounding environment of the facility, the use of the facility, and the size of the facility.

According to the above configuration, it is possible to extract from multiple past accidents cases that have a high degree of match with the abnormality discovered in the current inspection work in light of various items related to the equipment installation environment. Since the estimated damage amount is estimated from such cases, the accuracy of the estimated damage amount is improved.
The damage estimation unit may individually calculate the degree of agreement for each of the equipment-related information and the environment-related information for each identical equipment case information. The damage estimation unit may calculate a similarity rate that comprehensively represents the similarity between the state of the abnormal equipment and the identical equipment case information based on the individually calculated degrees of agreement. The damage estimation unit may estimate an estimated amount of damage corresponding to the identical equipment case information based on the similarity rate of the identical equipment case information and the amount of damage included in the identical equipment case information.

With the above configuration, when a case that highly matches an abnormality discovered during the current inspection is extracted from multiple past accidents, the amount of damage from that case is not directly applied as the estimated amount of damage. The degree of match is calculated individually for each item of equipment-related information and environment-related information, and a similarity rate is calculated based on these to comprehensively and quantitatively evaluate the similarity. The amount of damage from the past case is corrected according to this similarity rate, and this corrected amount becomes the estimated amount of damage. Because the estimated amount of damage is estimated according to the similarity rate of the match (or, conversely, the incompleteness of the match), the accuracy of the estimate is improved.

The damage estimation unit may correct the individually calculated degrees of match with weighting coefficients corresponding to the equipment-related information and the environment-related information, respectively. The damage estimation unit may calculate a similarity rate based on the corrected degrees of match.
When calculating the similarity rate, which is a comprehensive evaluation index, from the degree of coincidence calculated for each item of equipment-related information and environment-related information, the strength of the influence on the similarity rate may differ depending on the item. With the above configuration, attention is focused on the difference in the strength of the influence, and the degree of coincidence is corrected with a weighting coefficient prior to calculating the similarity rate. This allows for accurate calculation of the similarity rate, and also improves the accuracy of the estimated damage amount based on this.

The inspection result output device may further include a repair cost estimation unit that estimates an estimated repair cost required to repair the abnormal device. The output unit may output the estimated repair cost together with the estimated damage amount.
The above configuration eliminates the need for the owner to obtain an estimate of repair costs themselves, and supports prompt action. Generally, the cost required for repairs is less than the economic loss that would result from an accident caused by leaving an abnormality unaddressed. Since the economic risk and repair costs can be reported to the owner at the same time, the owner can be urged to repair the abnormal equipment immediately rather than leaving it as it is.

An inspection result output method according to one embodiment of the present invention comprises: referencing multiple inspection results performed on multiple devices in a facility, extracting abnormal devices determined to be out of order from the multiple devices; acquiring multiple pieces of accident information associated with multiple accidents that have occurred in the past on the same type of facility as the one inspected, and including at least the amount of damage caused by the accidents; referencing the multiple pieces of accident information, estimating the amount of damage that could occur if the abnormal devices are left in an abnormal state; and outputting the estimated amount of damage along with the multiple inspection results.

An inspection result output program according to an embodiment of the present invention causes a computer to execute the inspection result output method.
The above-mentioned method and program have the same or corresponding technical features as the above-mentioned device. Therefore, even if the equipment is currently operational, it is not wise to leave it as it is, and it is easy to give the owner the impression that action should be taken. This can support prompt action on abnormal equipment.

This invention can assist in promptly addressing abnormal equipment when an abnormality is detected in facility equipment during inspection work.

1 is a block diagram showing an inspection result output device according to an embodiment of the present invention. 1 is a flowchart illustrating a part of an inspection result output method according to an embodiment of the present invention. 1 is a flowchart illustrating a part of an inspection result output method according to an embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of accident information. 1A is a diagram illustrating an example of information indicating the current status of an abnormal device, and FIG. 1B is a diagram illustrating an example of identical device case information. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of equipment included in a facility to be inspected, and conceptually illustrates a process for determining whether or not to perform a process for estimating the amount of damage. 1A is a diagram showing facility environment data as part of a facility information database, and FIG. 1B is a diagram showing device data as part of a facility information database. 1A is a diagram showing the results of tabulating data required to calculate weighting coefficients for each model type, and FIG. 1B is a graph showing the slope required to calculate weighting coefficients for each model type. (A) is a graph showing the slope required to calculate a weighting coefficient for the manufacturer. (B) is a graph showing the slope required to calculate a weighting coefficient for the model. (C) is a graph showing the slope required to calculate a weighting coefficient for the number of years exceeded. (D) is a graph showing the slope required to calculate a weighting coefficient for the regional characteristics. (E) is a graph showing the slope required to calculate a weighting coefficient for the surrounding environment. (F) is a graph showing the slope required to calculate a weighting coefficient for the facility use. (G) is a graph showing the slope required to calculate a weighting coefficient for the facility size. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating the relationship between the slope and the weighting coefficient. FIG. 10 is a diagram conceptually showing a process of calculating a similarity rate from the degree of agreement of each comparison item, and a process of calculating an estimated amount of damage based on the similarity rate.

Hereinafter, an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings. The same or corresponding elements are designated by the same reference numerals throughout the drawings, and detailed descriptions thereof will be omitted.
(Application example)
1 shows an inspection result output device 1 according to an embodiment of the present invention. The inspection result output device 1 is preferably introduced to a maintenance and inspection company that undertakes inspection work for equipment installed in each of a plurality of facilities.

"Facilities" are relatively large-scale business establishments, such as factories, government buildings, schools, hospitals, hotels, sports facilities, entertainment facilities, and commercial facilities. "Equipment" includes, for example, electrical equipment (or electrical structures), communication equipment, mechanical equipment (e.g., elevators), air conditioning equipment, disaster prevention equipment, sanitary equipment, and septic tanks. Equipment is owned by an owner or manager.
In the following, this embodiment will be described taking as an example a case where private electrical equipment (particularly high-voltage power receiving equipment) is to be inspected, and taking as an example a case where the inspection work is a monthly regular inspection.

Examples of private electrical equipment that require inspection include high-voltage power receiving equipment, extra-high-voltage power receiving equipment, and power generation equipment other than small-output power generation equipment. Of these, high-voltage power receiving equipment receives electricity at high voltage (e.g., 6,600V or 3,300V) from distribution lines, transforms it to low voltage (e.g., 100V or 200V), and supplies the electricity at low voltage to load equipment within the facility. A so-called "cubicle" is one type of high-voltage power receiving equipment.

A cubicle comprises a housing and the equipment housed within. The housing is a grounded metal box with a front door that opens and closes the interior. The equipment includes a transformer, as well as meters, switches, and protective devices. The meters measure and display voltage, current, power, etc. The switches open and close circuits. The protective devices protect the equipment in the event of overcurrent, ground faults, abnormally high voltage, etc. The equipment also includes capacitors for improving the power factor. Specific examples of the equipment are shown in more detail in Figure 4.

(Inspection work)
Inspection work for high-voltage power receiving equipment in operation is divided into daily patrols, daily inspections, periodic inspections, detailed inspections, and special inspections, with periodic inspections being either monthly or annual. Monthly inspections are carried out once every one to three months, and the presence or absence of equipment abnormalities is confirmed by the inspector's five senses or by using various measuring instruments handled by the inspector. There are a wide variety of inspection items that are inspected during monthly inspections.

Some inspection items are measured quantitatively using measuring instruments or readings from meters attached to the equipment. For inspection items that are measured quantitatively, the inspection results are measured values.
Some inspection items are evaluated qualitatively. Inspectors use their five senses to qualitatively evaluate the condition of each piece of internal equipment by checking for changes in appearance (for example, rust or dirt stuck in the insulating oil), vibration, strange sounds, or strange odors. In high-voltage power receiving equipment, examples of inspection items that are qualitatively evaluated include the condition of each piece of equipment, such as the condition of transformers, capacitors, and switches.

For inspection items that are evaluated qualitatively, the inspection result is one selected from multiple pre-specified levels. The three levels of "○", "×", and "△" are typical examples of "multiple pre-specified levels". In this example, the ○ mark corresponds to an inspection result of "normal", and the × mark corresponds to an inspection result of "abnormal". The △ mark corresponds to an inspection result of "signs of abnormality", for example, and indicates a state in which replacement or other requests or suggestions should be made to the owner.

The inspector operates the inspector information terminal 2 to input inspection results for multiple inspection items. The inspector information terminal 2 is an information terminal carried by the inspector and is realized, for example, as a smartphone or tablet. A work application is installed on the inspector information terminal 2. The inspector can input inspection results by launching the work application and operating the touch panel.

The input inspection results are recorded on an inspection form 9. The inspection form 9 is then submitted to the owner. If the owner receives an inspection form 9 that includes an inspection result indicating an abnormal condition, such as an "X" or "△," the owner must repair the equipment corresponding to the inspection result (the abnormal equipment). In such cases, the inspection result output device 1 according to this embodiment outputs an inspection form 9 to support prompt action on the abnormal equipment.

(Inspection result output device)
The inspection result output device 1 is realized, for example, by a server managed by a maintenance and inspection company or an information terminal used by an operator involved in the management work of the maintenance and inspection company. The server or information terminal is a computer equipped with a CPU, memory, and an input/output interface.

The inspection result output program of the present invention is installed on such a computer and stored, for example, in its memory. The CPU reads the program from the memory and processes information according to the steps instructed by the program. This allows the computer to execute the inspection result output method of the present invention and function as the inspection result output device 1. However, the inspection result output program does not need to be stored in the same computer as the CPU that reads it; it may be stored on a server or cloud that is physically separate from this computer.

The inspection result output device 1 is connected to the inspector information terminal 2 described above so that it can communicate with it. The inspection result output device 1 can access the equipment information database 3, the accident information database 4, and the repair information database 5. As shown in the illustrated example, all of the databases 3 to 5 may be stored in an external storage device of the computer that constitutes the inspection result output device 1. Alternatively, all of the databases 3 to 5 may be stored in memory within the computer. Databases 3 to 5 may also be stored in a distributed manner between the memory within the computer and an external storage device.

As shown in Figure 1, the inspection result output device 1 has an inspection result acquisition unit 11, an output unit 12, an abnormal equipment extraction unit 13, a repair cost estimation unit 14, an accident information acquisition unit 15, a damage estimation unit 16, a weighting calculation unit 17, and a weighting table 18.
The inspection result acquisition unit 11 acquires the inspection results inputted by the inspector information terminal 2. The output unit 12 outputs the acquired inspection results. The inspection results are inputted in accordance with a predetermined form and outputted in the form of an inspection form 9.

The abnormal device extraction unit 13 references the acquired inspection results and extracts "abnormal devices." An abnormal device is a device that is determined not to be in a normal state during inspection work. Specifically, it is a device for which the inspection result is anything other than a "○" mark. An abnormal device is a device for which the owner should be urged to take measures such as repairs, in light of the content of the processing performed after extraction. Therefore, devices whose recommended replacement period is within a specified period (for example, within two years) may be extracted as "abnormal devices" regardless of the inspection results.

The repair cost estimation unit 14 accesses the repair information database 5 and estimates the repair cost required to repair the extracted abnormal device. The estimated repair cost includes the sales price of the device to be replaced, labor costs for the replacement work, transportation costs, etc.
The accident information acquisition unit 15 accesses the accident information database 4 and acquires accident information associated with each of multiple accidents that have occurred in the past in equipment of the same type as the equipment on which the inspection work was performed (e.g., a cubicle).

The damage estimation unit 16 references the acquired accident information and estimates the estimated amount of damage that could occur if the abnormal equipment is left as is. The damage estimation unit 16 compares the current state of the abnormal equipment with past cases using multiple comparison items, extracts similar cases, and estimates the estimated amount of damage based on the amount of damage incurred in similar cases. Note that the "amount of damage" and "estimated amount of damage" may include not only directly incurred damage and compensation, but also secondary damage such as a drop in stock price, damage to the company's image, and reduced sales, converted into a monetary value.

The weighting calculation unit 17 calculates a weighting coefficient for each of the plurality of comparison items according to the degree of influence on the similarity. The weighting table 18 defines the correspondence between the plurality of comparison items and the calculated weighting coefficients, and is stored in the memory of the inspection result output device 1. The correspondence is not limited to one pattern, and may be multiple patterns.
When an abnormal device is identified, the output unit 12 outputs the inspection results together with a message urging repairs, the estimated repair costs, and the estimated damage amount. These may be output as entries in the inspection form 9. Separately from the inspection form 9, a document (e.g., an estimate) listing the estimated repair costs may be output. Separately from the inspection form 9, a document (e.g., an economic risk report) listing the estimated damage amount may be output.

(Inspection result output method)
The configuration and operation of the inspection result output device 1 will be described below in accordance with the procedure of the inspection result output method according to this embodiment shown in Figures 2 and 3. The inspection result output method starts when the inspection result acquisition unit 11 acquires the inspection results from the inspector information terminal 2 (S10), and ends when the output unit 12 outputs the inspection results, etc. (S90).

When the inspection result acquisition unit 11 acquires the inspection results, the abnormal device extraction unit 13 extracts abnormal devices (S20). For example, the abnormal device extraction unit 13 references the inspection results and determines whether there are any devices for which the inspection results indicate an abnormal state (e.g., a "△" mark, an "X" mark, etc.) (S21). The abnormal device extraction unit 13 determines whether there are any devices whose recommended replacement period is within a predetermined period (e.g., within two years) (S22).

If at least one of these determination conditions is met (S21: Y or S21: Y), the abnormal device extraction unit 13 extracts the corresponding device as an abnormal device (S20: Y).If none of these determination conditions is met (S21: N and S22: N), the abnormal device extraction unit 13 determines that no abnormal device was found in the current inspection work (S20: N).
If no abnormal devices are extracted (S20: N), the output unit 12 outputs the acquired inspection results in the form of an inspection slip 9 (S91), and the process ends. The inspection slip 9, which states that all devices are normal, is submitted to the owner.

The following describes the case where an abnormal device is extracted (S20: Y). For convenience of explanation, it is assumed that one abnormal device (for example, a section switch (PAS)) is extracted.
First, the repair cost estimation unit 14 estimates the repair cost of the extracted abnormal device (S30).
Next, the accident information acquisition unit 15 acquires accident information (S40). As shown in Fig. 4, accident information is associated one-to-one with each accident. The accident information database 4 records multiple pieces of accident information. Each piece of accident information includes basic information indicating an outline of the accident, environment-related information related to the installation environment of the equipment where the accident occurred, equipment-related information related to the equipment that caused the accident (hereinafter referred to as "causing equipment"), and damage information indicating the details of the damage.

The basic information includes information such as the date and time of the accident, the weather, the location, and the type of accident (for example, a power outage, a fire, etc.).
The environmental information includes information such as the regional characteristics of the facility where the equipment is installed, the surrounding environment of the facility, the purpose of the facility, and the size of the facility. Regional characteristics indicate whether an accident is likely to occur geographically or climatically. For example, it indicates whether the area is prone to salt damage, lightning damage, heavy rainfall, or cold snow. The size may be expressed in terms of the number of users or capacity of the facility, or the area of the site.

The equipment-related information includes information such as the type of the causing equipment, the manufacturer of the causing equipment, the model of the causing equipment, and the number of years that have passed since the recommended replacement date of the causing equipment at the time of the accident occurrence.
The damage information includes information such as the total amount of damage, the amount of compensation paid to others, the cost of self-recovery, and the period required for self-recovery.
Next, the damage estimation unit 16 estimates the estimated amount of damage by referring to the acquired accident information (S50). As described above, when calculating the estimated amount of damage, the damage estimation unit 16 extracts from past cases those similar to the current state of the abnormal equipment, and estimates the estimated amount of damage based on the total amount of damage caused in similar cases.

First, the damage estimation unit 16 extracts multiple "identical device case information" from the multiple pieces of acquired accident information, where the type of the contributing device is the same as the abnormal device (S51). Figure 5(A) shows the current status of the abnormal device in the same manner as the accident information. In this case, the abnormal device is a PAS. In this case, the contributing device is a PAS, and this is extracted as identical device case information. Figure 5(B) shows an example of some of the extracted identical device case information.

Next, the damage estimation unit 16 determines whether the number of samples (i.e., the number of identical equipment case information extracted) is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (S52). If the number of samples is less than the predetermined value (S52: N), the damage estimation process is skipped and output process S90 is performed. Here, the output unit 12 outputs the acquired inspection results in the form of an inspection form 9, as well as a message urging the abnormal equipment to be repaired and the estimated repair costs for the abnormal equipment (S92).

Figure 6 is an explanatory diagram of the determination process S52. Here, it is assumed that 500 pieces of accident information are recorded in the accident information database 4. In Figure 6, the causative devices and the corresponding number of cases are sorted from the top down in descending order of the number of cases. The predetermined value may be 1 (see dashed line L1). In this case, if there is even one identical device case information (i.e., if the abnormal device is the same as the causative device listed in the row above dashed line L1), the damage amount estimation process is performed. The predetermined value may be a number greater than 1, such as 10 (see dashed line L2).

If the number of samples is equal to or greater than the predetermined value (S52: Y), the damage estimation process is performed as shown in Fig. 3. First, the damage estimation unit 16 selects one piece of accident information from the same equipment case information (S53). The accident information may be assigned a serial number, and in this case, the accident information is selected one by one in ascending order of numbers.
Next, the damage estimation unit 16 selects one comparison item from the plurality of comparison items (S54). The comparison item is an index used to determine the similarity between the current status of the abnormal device and each case indicated in the same device case information.

In this embodiment, the comparison items are broadly divided into two categories: equipment-related information and environment-related information. With regard to equipment-related information, the comparison items are further divided into equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment model, and number of years since the recommended replacement period. With regard to environment-related information, the comparison items are further divided into facility use, facility size, regional characteristics, and surrounding environment. In this way, in this embodiment, the current situation is compared with past cases for eight comparison items.

The damage estimation unit 16 references the equipment information database 3 to obtain information on comparison items for the abnormal equipment and the equipment that is equipped with it. The equipment information database 3 includes facility environment data 3A (see Figure 7(A)), which records environmental information for each facility, and equipment data 3B (see Figure 7(B)), which records equipment-related information for each piece of equipment included in the equipment installed in each facility. The damage estimation unit 16 reads the environment-related information for the facility in which the equipment equipped with the abnormal equipment is installed from the facility environment data 3A, and reads the equipment-related information for the abnormal equipment from the equipment data 3B of that facility. As a result, as shown in Figure 5(A), information indicating the current status of the abnormal equipment is organized in the same manner as the accident information. Because it is organized in the same manner, it becomes possible to compare the current status of the abnormal equipment with the accident information (information on identical equipment cases).

Next, the damage estimation unit 16 calculates the degree of proximity between the current situation and the selected accident information for one selected comparison item (S55). Next, the damage estimation unit 16 references the weighting table 18 and corrects the calculated degree of proximity with a weighting coefficient (S56). The damage estimation unit 16 performs this calculation and correction process for the degree of proximity for all comparison items (S57: N → S54).

The proximity calculation process will be described with reference to Figures 5(A), 5(B), and 11. Of the eight comparison items, for "device type," the type of abnormal device is compared with the type of factor device in the selected accident information. In this embodiment, prior to calculating the proximity, the process of extracting identical device case information is performed. Therefore, the type of abnormal device is always the same as the type of factor device. Therefore, the proximity is set to the maximum value of "1."

For the eight comparison items "manufacturer," "model," "facility use," "area characteristics," and "surrounding environment," the damage estimation unit 16 makes a binary decision as to whether the current situation matches the selected accident information. In this example, the manufacturer and model do not match the current situation and the accident information with serial number information "1." In this case, the proximity is the minimum value, "0." The facility use and surrounding environment match the current situation and the accident information with serial number information "1." In this case, the proximity is the maximum value, "1."

With regard to regional characteristics, if there is at least one matching item, the damage estimation unit 16 determines that there is a match. In this example, the current situation only applies to areas affected by lightning, while the accident information with serial number information "1" applies to areas affected by salt damage, areas affected by lightning, and areas with heavy snow and cold weather. Because the area affected by lightning is common, the damage estimation unit 16 determines that there is a match, and the proximity is set to the highest value of "1." The accident information with serial number information "5" only applies to areas with heavy rainfall. Because there are no common items, the damage estimation unit 16 determines that there is no match, and the proximity is set to the lowest value of "0."

Of the eight comparison items, for "exceeding age" and "facility size," the damage estimation unit 16 determines the degree of match between the current situation and the selected accident information. The degree of proximity is not just "1" or "0," but can also take on intermediate values.
Regarding "exceeding age," in this example, currently, two years have passed since the recommended replacement date for the abnormal equipment at the time of the inspection work, while in the accident information with serial number information "1," 10 years have passed since the recommended replacement date for the causative equipment at the time of the accident. In this case, the proximity is "0.2," which is the ratio of the age of the abnormal equipment to the age of the causative equipment. Note that the age can also be negative (i.e., there is a possibility that an inspection will determine that the equipment is in an abnormal state, or that an accident will occur, before the recommended replacement date arrives). In this case, the proximity is calculated as a number between "1" and "0" depending on the difference in age, etc. The proximity is calculated in a similar manner for "facility size."

The degree of match for the eight comparison items has the same maximum value when they match and the same minimum value when they do not match. However, even if all eight comparison items are useful as indicators for examining the similarity of cases, they do not have equal influence on the similarity of the cases. Therefore, when estimating the estimated amount of damage based on the similarity between the current situation and the selected accident information, the damage estimation unit 16 corrects the degree of proximity taking this influence into account, thereby improving the accuracy of the similarity determination.

Prior to the process of estimating the estimated damage amount, the weighting calculation unit 17 calculates in advance a weighting coefficient as a parameter representing the degree of influence. The process of calculating the weighting coefficient is performed in a flow separate from the process that begins upon acquisition of the inspection results, and is therefore not shown in the flowcharts of Figures 2 and 3.
8(A), 8(B), 9(A)-(G), and 10 show examples of the weighting coefficient calculation process. The purpose of the weighting coefficient is to enable accurate estimation of the amount of damage that may occur if the current situation is left as is. Therefore, the weighting calculation unit 17 tally up the number of cases and the amount of loss (total) by element for each comparison item based on multiple accident information records in the accident information database 4.

Figure 8 (A) shows the results of the calculation, using equipment type as an example of a comparison item. In the case of equipment type, each piece of equipment that makes up the facility is an "element" (see also Figure 4). The loss amount by element is the total amount of damage caused by accidents in which the same element is the contributing equipment. For example, if 225 accidents in which PAS is the contributing equipment are recorded in the accident information database 4, the loss amount by element is the sum of the total amount of damage caused by these 225 accidents.

In this embodiment, the weighting calculation unit 17 sorts the data in descending order of element-specific loss amount. The element-specific loss amounts are accumulated from top to bottom, and the cumulative rate is then calculated. Next, the weighting calculation unit 17 extracts elements whose cumulative rate is 70% or greater. In this example, when the element-specific loss amounts are accumulated from first to fourth place, the cumulative rate exceeds 70%. This fourth place is the ranking of the element whose cumulative rate has exceeded 70% for the first time, and is hereinafter referred to as the "lowest of the calculation interval."

Next, the weighting calculation unit 17 calculates the slope of the element-specific loss amount from the lowest element-specific loss amount in the calculation interval and the highest element-specific loss amount. As shown in Figure 8 (B), the "slope" is calculated by dividing the difference between the highest element-specific loss amount and the lowest element-specific loss amount in the calculation interval by the number of elements from the first to the bottom of the calculation interval. In this example, since the lowest calculation interval is the fourth-highest, the absolute value of the slope is calculated as "225" by dividing "900 (million yen)", which is the difference between the first and fourth-highest element-specific loss amounts, by "4", which is the number of elements.

As shown in Fig. 9, the above-described statistical and arithmetic processes are performed on all comparison items. As shown in Fig. 10, the weighting calculation unit 17 calculates the sum of all comparison items (1253.5 in the illustrated example) and calculates the ratio (%) of the absolute value of the slope of each comparison item to the sum as a weighting coefficient. In this case, the sum of the weighting coefficients is 100.
As shown in FIG. 11, the damage estimation unit 16 corrects the proximity for each comparison item by multiplying it by a corresponding weighting coefficient.

The damage estimation unit 16 calculates the sum of the corrected degrees of proximity and uses this sum as a similarity rate (%) that comprehensively represents the similarity between the current status of the abnormal equipment and the selected accident information (S59). If the degree of proximity for all comparison items is the highest value of "1", the sum of the corrected degrees of proximity will be 100, and the similarity rate will be 100%. In this example, there are comparison items with a degree of proximity of "0" and comparison items with a degree of proximity that is intermediate between "1" and "0", resulting in a similarity rate of 67.34%.

Next, the damage estimation unit 16 estimates the estimated amount of damage (S59). The estimated amount of damage is calculated by multiplying the total amount of damage of the selected accident information by the similarity rate. In this example, the total amount of damage is 40 million yen and the similarity rate is 67.34%, so the estimated amount of damage is 26.9 million yen.
This completes the estimation process based on one piece of accident information. The damage estimation unit 16 performs the same estimation process on all the extracted identical device case information (S60: N→S53).

Once the estimated damage amounts have been calculated for all identical equipment case information (S60: Y), the damage estimation unit 16 extracts a predetermined number of estimation results with the highest estimated damage amounts (S61), and then extracts a predetermined number of estimation results with a high degree of proximity to "exceeding the age limit" (S62). The damage estimation unit 16 estimates the estimated time of accident occurrence for the estimation results extracted in this way (S63).

For example, suppose the current age of a faulty device is eight years. In accident information with a high estimated damage amount and a high degree of proximity to the age limit, the age limit is ten years. In this case, if the faulty device is left unattended for two years, it will be past the recommended replacement date by the same amount as in the current case. In past cases, accidents have occurred due to the same device in this state, so the damage estimation unit 16 estimates the time of the accident to be "two years later" or "within two years," based on the difference in the age limit.

Returning to Figure 2, the output unit 12 outputs the acquired inspection results in the form of an inspection form 9, as well as a message urging the abnormal equipment to be repaired, the estimated repair costs for the abnormal equipment, and information regarding the economic risk (S93). The information regarding the economic risk includes accidents that may occur if the abnormal equipment is left unattended (e.g., fire, power outage, etc.), the estimated amount of damage that may result from the accident, and the estimated time when the accident will occur. For example, the information regarding the economic risk is output in the form of a message such as, "There is a risk of a fire occurring within XX years, in which case it is estimated that an economic loss of 26.9 million yen will occur."

(Action and effect)
According to the inspection result output device 1 configured as described above, when there is an abnormal device determined to be out of normal, accident information associated with past accidents is referenced, and the estimated amount of damage that could occur if the abnormal device is left unattended is estimated. The estimated amount of damage is output along with the inspection results, and the owner is informed of the economic risk that would arise from leaving the abnormality unattended. This makes it easier for the owner to believe that leaving the device unattended, even if the equipment is currently operational, is not a good idea, and that action should be taken. This can therefore support rapid action on abnormal devices.

The damage estimation unit 16 estimates the estimated damage amount if the number of extracted cases of the same equipment is equal to or greater than a predetermined value. When referencing cases in which equipment of the same type as the abnormal equipment was the cause of an accident, the estimated damage amount is reported to the owner only if there are more than the predetermined number of cases. Because the estimated damage amount is estimated based on more data, the reliability of the information reported to the owner can be maintained.

The damage estimation unit 16 corrects the individually calculated degrees of coincidence with weighting coefficients corresponding to each of the equipment-related information and environment-related information. The damage estimation unit 16 calculates the similarity rate based on the corrected degrees of coincidence. When calculating the similarity rate, which is an overall evaluation index, from the degrees of coincidence calculated individually for each item of equipment-related information and environment-related information, the strength of the influence on the similarity rate may differ depending on the item. With the above configuration, attention is focused on these differences in the strength of influence, and the degree of coincidence is corrected with a weighting coefficient prior to calculating the similarity rate. This allows the similarity rate to be calculated accurately, and the accuracy of the estimated damage amount based on this is also improved.

The inspection result output device 1 is equipped with a repair cost estimation unit 14 that estimates the estimated repair costs required to repair abnormal equipment. This eliminates the need for owners to obtain repair cost estimates themselves, and supports prompt action. Generally, the costs required for repairs are minor compared to the economic losses that would result from an accident caused by leaving an abnormality unaddressed. By simultaneously reporting the economic risk and repair costs to the owner, it is possible to urge the owner to repair abnormal equipment immediately rather than leaving it as is.

(Modification)
Although the embodiments of the present invention have been described above, the above configurations are merely examples, and modifications, additions and/or deletions can be made as appropriate within the scope of the present invention.
(A) In the above embodiment, the weighting coefficients were calculated based on the descending order of the element-specific damage amounts, but the weighting coefficients may also be calculated based on the descending order of the number of cases. In this case, the weighting coefficients can be determined based on the absolute value of the slope in the same manner as above. The calculation interval for the weighting coefficients was set to 70% of the cumulative value, but this value is merely an example and can be changed as appropriate.
Furthermore, the weighting coefficient may be determined manually for each comparison item by an operator of the maintenance and inspection company that handles the inspection result output device 1, or may be customizable to any numerical value.

(B) In the above embodiment, equipment-related information and environment-related information were used as comparison items when evaluating the degree of match between the abnormal equipment being inspected and past accident cases. This is not limited to this, and company-related information related to the owner (generally a business entity) may also be used as a comparison item. Company-related information includes company size, whether the company is listed, name recognition, company policies, etc. The scale of secondary damage is expected to differ depending on this information. Therefore, by referencing the degree of match of company-related information and estimating the estimated amount of damage based on this, the accuracy of the estimation can be improved.

(C) The above embodiment has been described as an example of electrical equipment, particularly cubicles, being the subject of inspection work, but it can also be applied to other electrical equipment, and also to equipment other than electrical equipment.

REFERENCE SIGNS LIST 1 Inspection result output device 11 Inspection result acquisition unit 12 Output unit 13 Abnormal device extraction unit 14 Repair cost estimation unit 15 Accident information acquisition unit 16 Damage estimation unit 17 Weighting calculation unit 18 Weighting table

Claims (9)

an abnormal device extraction unit that refers to a plurality of inspection results performed on each of a plurality of devices provided in the facility and extracts an abnormal device that is determined to be not in a normal state from the plurality of devices;
an accident information acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of pieces of accident information associated with each of a plurality of accidents that have occurred in the past in equipment of the same type as the equipment on which the inspection work was performed, the information including the amount of damage caused by the accident, the causative equipment that caused the accident, and a plurality of comparison items as indices used to determine the similarity with the current status of the abnormal equipment;
a damage estimation unit that refers to the plurality of pieces of accident information and estimates an estimated amount of damage that may occur if the abnormal device is left in an abnormal state;
an output unit that outputs the estimated damage amount together with the plurality of inspection results;
Equipped with
The damage estimation unit
extracting identical device case information in which the type of the factor device is the same as the abnormal device from the plurality of pieces of accident information;
For each of the comparison items, a degree of proximity between the identical device case information and the current status of the abnormal device is calculated;
correcting the degree of proximity with a weighting coefficient as a parameter representing the degree of influence on the similarity between the identical device case information and the current status of the abnormal device for each of the comparison items;
The sum of the degrees of proximity after correction is calculated as a similarity rate representing the similarity between the identical device case information and the current state of the abnormal device;
An inspection result output device that calculates the estimated amount of damage by multiplying the amount of damage in the identical device case information by the similarity rate. the damage estimation unit extracts the plurality of pieces of identical device case information from the plurality of pieces of accident information, and when the number of extracted pieces of identical device case information is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, estimates the estimated damage amount;
The inspection result output device according to claim 1. The comparison items include equipment-related information related to the causative equipment and environment-related information related to the installation environment of the facility in which the accident occurred.
The inspection result output device according to claim 2 . The device-related information further includes, in addition to the type of the causing device, at least one of the manufacturer of the causing device, the model of the causing device, and the number of years that have passed since the recommended replacement time of the causing device at the time the accident occurred.
The inspection result output device according to claim 3. the damage estimation unit estimates an estimated time when an accident may occur in the equipment for which the inspection work was performed, based on the number of years that have passed as part of the equipment-related information and the number of years that have passed since the recommended replacement time of the abnormal equipment at the time of the inspection work;
The output unit outputs the estimated time period together with the estimated amount of damage.
The inspection result output device according to claim 4. The environment-related information includes at least one of regional characteristics of the facility where the equipment is installed, the surrounding environment of the facility, the purpose of the facility, and the size of the facility.
The inspection result output device according to claim 3. The system further includes a repair cost estimation unit that estimates an estimated repair cost required to repair the abnormal device,
The output unit outputs the estimated repair cost together with the estimated damage amount.
The inspection result output device according to any one of claims 1 to 6. an abnormal device extraction step in which a computer extracts abnormal devices determined to be not in a normal state from a plurality of devices provided in the facility by referring to a plurality of inspection results performed on each of the plurality of devices;
an accident information acquisition step in which a computer acquires a plurality of pieces of accident information associated with each of a plurality of accidents that have occurred in the past in equipment of the same type as the equipment on which the inspection work was performed, the information including the amount of damage caused by the accident, the causative equipment that caused the accident, and a plurality of comparison items as indices used to determine the similarity with the current status of the abnormal equipment;
a damage estimation step in which a computer estimates an estimated amount of damage that may occur if the abnormal device is left in an abnormal state by referring to the plurality of pieces of accident information;
an output step in which the computer outputs the estimated damage amount together with the plurality of inspection results;
Equipped with
The damage estimation step includes:
extracting identical device case information in which the type of the factor device is the same as the abnormal device from the plurality of pieces of accident information;
For each of the comparison items, a degree of proximity between the identical device case information and the current status of the abnormal device is calculated;
correcting the degree of proximity with a weighting coefficient as a parameter representing the degree of influence on the similarity between the identical device case information and the current status of the abnormal device for each of the comparison items;
The sum of the degrees of proximity after correction is calculated as a similarity rate representing the similarity between the identical device case information and the current state of the abnormal device;
An inspection result output method for calculating the estimated amount of damage by multiplying the amount of damage in the identical device case information by the similarity rate. A method for outputting inspection results according to claim 8 ,
Inspection result output program.