[go: up one dir, main page]

WO2012053103A1 - Design rule update supporting device - Google Patents

Design rule update supporting device Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2012053103A1
WO2012053103A1 PCT/JP2010/068715 JP2010068715W WO2012053103A1 WO 2012053103 A1 WO2012053103 A1 WO 2012053103A1 JP 2010068715 W JP2010068715 W JP 2010068715W WO 2012053103 A1 WO2012053103 A1 WO 2012053103A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
design rule
design
change
database
rule
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/JP2010/068715
Other languages
French (fr)
Japanese (ja)
Inventor
昌幸 針谷
Original Assignee
株式会社日立製作所
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by 株式会社日立製作所 filed Critical 株式会社日立製作所
Priority to PCT/JP2010/068715 priority Critical patent/WO2012053103A1/en
Publication of WO2012053103A1 publication Critical patent/WO2012053103A1/en

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING OR CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F30/00—Computer-aided design [CAD]
    • G06F30/30—Circuit design
    • G06F30/32—Circuit design at the digital level
    • G06F30/33—Design verification, e.g. functional simulation or model checking
    • G06F30/3323—Design verification, e.g. functional simulation or model checking using formal methods, e.g. equivalence checking or property checking

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to a design rule update support apparatus that utilizes design rules and design standards in product development and design.
  • the present invention relates to a work for updating the design rules and design standards by examining the validity of the design rules and design standards.
  • the present invention relates to a design rule update support apparatus that performs support.
  • design items (designated design items) set in the THEN part of the design rules, design values thereof, and items of required specifications set in the IF part of the design rules ( Specified information including the specified request item), search the design case DB for specified value matching data whose design actual value matches the design value of the specified information, and request the specified request item in the data
  • the actual value is set as a required value candidate of the IF section, and for each candidate, the number of data in which the required actual value matches the required value candidate in the design case DB
  • the occupancy ratio occupied by the number of data whose request actual value matches the request value candidate is calculated, and the setting is such that the occupancy ratio is greater than or equal to a predetermined value among the designation information and the request value candidate Rule information Those produced are known (e.g., see Patent Document 1).
  • the designation information including the designated design item and its design value, the designation requirement item and its requirement value is input, the additional requirement specification information (addition requirement item and the additional requirement value) is set, and the design case DB Among the data having the specified required value and the additional required value, the ratio of the data having the specified design value is large, and it is added among the data having the specified required value in the design case DB but not having the specified design value.
  • the design rule There is known one that generates and registers a design rule in which designation information and additional requirement specification information are set when the ratio of data having a requirement value is small (see, for example, Patent Document 1).
  • the devices described in Patent Document 1 and Patent Document 2 are devices that generate a design rule described in IF-THEN including conditional expressions and determination results.
  • the system user designates the design item and its design value, the requirement item and its requirement value, searches the design case DB, the case where the value of the design item is the design value, and the requirement item is the requirement value.
  • the occupancy ratio in the number of cases where the value of the design item is the design value is calculated, and an occupancy ratio that is greater than or equal to a predetermined value is generated as a design rule.
  • Patent Document 3 uses a design rule registered in a rule library to check the current design and interactively display a rule violation or matters to be noted as design contents on the screen. .
  • An object of the present invention is to examine the validity of a design rule used in a design rule check system, a design expert system, and the like, and when it is determined that the validity is low, a design rule update support device that can distribute a change plan in a timely manner Is to provide.
  • the present invention registers a model input means for inputting model information such as a shape model and an analysis result through an input / output device, and a shape model input by the model input means.
  • Design rule validity evaluation means for determining the validity of the design rule from the analysis result parameter and the design rule registered in the design rule database, and generating a proposed change for the design rule that needs to be changed,
  • a design rule change proposal presenting means for presenting a design rule change proposal generated by the design rule validity evaluation means is provided.
  • the design rule validity evaluation means compares the determination rule of the design rule with the parameters of the model group registered in the model parameter database as a study of validity. It is a thing.
  • the check result display means displays the check result, and inquires whether or not a change is necessary for a part that does not satisfy the design rule.
  • a design rule change rationale database registered in association with the design rule in the case where the change is not necessary, and the design rule change proposal presenting unit is adapted to the design rule change proposal in accordance with the design rule change proposal. The reason why there is no related change registered in the change rationale database is presented.
  • the validity of a design rule used in a design rule check system, a design expert system, or the like is examined, and a change proposal can be distributed in a timely manner when it is determined that the validity is low.
  • FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a configuration of a design rule update support apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention.
  • the design rule update support device 100 In addition to the input / output device 1, the model input unit 2, the model parameter database 3, the design rule database 4, the design rule check unit 5, and the check result display unit 6, the design rule update support device 100 In addition, a design rule change rationale database 7, a design rule validity evaluation unit 8, and a design rule change plan presentation unit 9 are provided. In other words, the design rule validity evaluation unit 7, the design rule change reason database 8, and the design rule change plan presentation unit 9 are added to the conventional design rule check device.
  • the model input unit 2 allows the system user to input model information such as a shape model and an analysis result through the input / output device 1. Details of the model input unit 2 will be described later with reference to FIG.
  • the model parameter database 3 registers the model input to the model input unit 2. Details of the model parameter database will be described later with reference to FIG.
  • the design rule database 4 registers the applicable range of the rule and the shape model or analysis result parameter in association with the possible range.
  • the design rule check unit 5 collates the input shape model and analysis result parameters with the design rule, and outputs the check result. Details of the design rule check unit 5 will be described later with reference to FIG.
  • the check result display unit 6 displays the check result by the design rule check unit 5 and inquires about the necessity of the change for a part that does not satisfy the rule, and prompts the user to input the reason if the change is not necessary. Details of the check result display unit 6 will be described later with reference to FIG.
  • the design rule change rationale database 7 registers the reason when no change is necessary in association with the design rule. Details of the design rule change basis database 7 will be described later with reference to FIG.
  • the design rule validity evaluation unit 8 determines the validity of the design rule based on the shape model, the analysis model, the design rule registered in the design rule database, and the design rule registered in the design rule change basis database and the reason. Then, a change proposal is generated for the design rule that needs to be changed. Details of the design rule validity evaluation unit 8 will be described later with reference to FIG.
  • the design rule change proposal presenting section 9 presents a design rule change proposal based on the design rule change proposal and the design rule registered in the design rule change basis database, and presents it to the system user. Details of the design rule change proposal presenting unit 9 will be described later with reference to FIG.
  • FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram of the operation of the model input unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • the model input unit 2 prompts the system user to input a model for performing a design rule check through the input / output device 1.
  • FIG. 2 shows an example of an input model input screen displayed on the input / output device 1 by the model input unit 2.
  • the system user selects information such as a product shape model and analysis result using the mouse pointer 201 which is the input / output device 1, and selects the “Register” button 202. To input the model.
  • the target model is selected from the model list.
  • the analysis result is obtained by inputting a model name, creating a shape model on the apparatus, or executing analysis calculation. Any method may be used as long as it is a means for specifying a model to be checked, such as a method for creating a model.
  • “product information” 203 and “part information” 204 which are defined as design rule attribute information described later, may be input before selecting the “Register” button.
  • the parameters that can be acquired from the model input here are checked.
  • parameters that can be acquired from the CAD shape such as the size of the shape, the center position of the hole, and the weight, and the distance between the parameter holes that can be acquired by calculating the parameters are subject to check.
  • analysis results include parameters that can be acquired from the analysis result file, such as stress values and strain values, and the direction of principal stress that can be acquired by calculating them.
  • the parameters obtained here and the “product information” 203 and “part information” 204 input by the system user are stored in the model parameter database shown below when the “register” button 202 is selected by the system user.
  • FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram of a data configuration of a model parameter database used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • the model parameter database 3 is a database that stores the model to be checked input by the model input unit 2. As shown in FIG. 3, in the model parameter database 3, parameters to be checked by the design rule check unit 5 are stored in a table format in association with an identifier for specifying a model. When storing parameters, for the parameters that can be acquired by calculating the input parameters, a means for performing the calculation at the time of registration is given to the registration program of the database.
  • attribute information for classifying the model such as product type, part type, material type, registration date and time is added and registered.
  • the design rule check 5 may be configured to acquire parameters from the input shape model or analysis result when performing the check.
  • a database for managing the shape model or the analysis result is included in the configuration instead of the model parameter database.
  • the model No. 2 in FIG. 3 is input by the system user.
  • FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram of the data structure of the design rule database used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • the design rule database 4 is a database for registering the applicable range of the rule and the shape model or analysis result parameter in association with the possible range.
  • a rule application target range is a value of attribute information registered in the model parameter database.
  • the rule No1 is a rule that the weight must be 30 kg or less in the shape model. Since the application target range is NULL for all product types, component types, and material types, it indicates that the design rule is applied to all shape models.
  • the rule No. 3 is a rule that the stress value must be 100 MPa or less for the shape model in which the material is iron because iron is defined in the material type column of the application target range. Thus, by limiting the application target range, a more detailed design rule check can be performed.
  • FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing the operation of the design rule check unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 6 is an explanatory diagram of an example of a check result by the design rule check unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • the design rule check unit 5 collates the parameter registered in the model parameter database 3 with the design rule registered in the design rule database 4, and outputs the check result.
  • the error rule and its parameters are output as the check result.
  • step S10 in FIG. 5 the design rule check unit 5 acquires all design rules registered in the design rule database. At this time, a flag indicating that the design rule is not implemented is set for each acquired design rule.
  • step S20 the design rule check unit 5 refers to the flags of each design rule and confirms whether all the design rules have been checked. If all the design rules have been checked, the design rule check process ends. If all the rules have not been checked, steps S30 to S80 are performed, and a rule check based on the design rule obtained here is performed.
  • step S30 the design rule check unit 5 acquires all models registered in the model parameter database. At this time, a flag indicating that the model is not implemented is set for each acquired model.
  • step S40 the design rule check unit 5 refers to the flag of each model and confirms whether all models have been checked. If all models have been checked, the design rule flag is changed to checked, and the process proceeds to the next design rule check process. If all models have not been checked, the process proceeds to step S50.
  • step S50 the design rule check unit 5 confirms whether the attribute of the check target design rule matches the attribute of the check target model.
  • the attribute value of the design rule attribute other than NULL matches the attribute value of the check target model.
  • the attribute of the design rule is that the product type is a motor and the other attributes are NULL. Since the attribute of the design rule that is not NULL is the product type and the value is the motor, the attribute matches even if the other attribute contains any value if the product type is the motor in the attribute of the model to be checked It is judged. For example, if the attribute of the model to be checked is the product type is motor, the component type is NULL, and the material type is iron, it is determined that the attribute matches. If they match, the process proceeds to step S60. If they do not match, the flag of the model is changed to checked, and the process proceeds to the next model check process.
  • step S60 the design rule check unit 5 checks whether the parameters of the check target design rule are registered in the check target model. For example, when the design rule parameter is stress and none is registered as the stress parameter of the model to be checked, the check process is not performed. If anything other than none is registered, the process proceeds to step S70. If none is registered, the flag of the model is changed to checked, and the process proceeds to the next model check process.
  • step S70 the design rule check unit 5 confirms whether the parameter value of the check target model is within the parameter value range of the check target design rule. Also, the flag of the model is changed to checked. If it is out of range, the rule is violated and the process proceeds to step S80.
  • step S80 the design rule check unit 5 outputs the rule violation to a check result file.
  • violation specification rules are associated with the model and output to a file.
  • FIG. 6 shows an example of a check result by the rule check unit 5.
  • model No. 2 shown in FIG. 3 since the weight is 35 kg, the material is iron and the stress is 150 MPa, the rules No. 1 and No. 3 shown in FIG. 4 are violated, so a result file as shown in FIG. 6 is output.
  • FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram of a display example by the check result display unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • the check result display unit 6 displays the rule that has been violated as a check result, as shown in FIG.
  • the rule violation can be accepted by pressing the “accept” button on the screen.
  • the reason for determination is information useful as a design basis and is also effective for studying the design rule. Therefore, the reason for determination is prompted in association with a rule that is not satisfied.
  • you make a mechanism that prevents the design work from proceeding unless you satisfy all the design rules or accept the rule violation and enter the reason for the decision it will lead to prevention of check omissions. Quality can be improved.
  • FIG. 8 is an explanatory diagram of the data configuration of the design rule change basis database used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • the design rule change rationale database 7 is a database in which the reason for no change required can be registered in association with the design rule. In accordance with the input of the reason in the check result display unit 6, as shown in FIG. 8, the model that caused the rule violation is registered in association with the design rule and the reason.
  • FIG. 9A, FIG. 9B, and FIG. 9C are explanatory diagrams of the concept of validity examination in the design rule validity evaluation unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 10 is a flowchart showing the processing of the design rule validity evaluation unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 11 is an explanatory diagram of an output example of a design rule change proposal in the design rule validity evaluation unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • the design rule validity evaluation unit 8 examines the validity of the design rule after the design rule check is completed.
  • the verification of validity is to examine whether the design rule should be changed to a stricter parameter or whether it should be loosened.
  • FIG. 9A, FIG. 9B, and FIG. 9C are graphs in which the stress values of the analysis results stored in the model parameter database are created with the case number as the horizontal axis (1 to 20) and the stress value as the vertical axis. Taking the design rule as to whether the stress is 100 MPa or less as an example, as shown in FIG. 9A, it can be said that the reasonable design is that stress values are concentrated in a range slightly smaller than 100 MPa.
  • cases are concentrated at 40 MPa or less, which is not appropriate. This is considered to be a case where either a design error or the judgment value should have been reduced to, for example, 40 MPa originally (a pattern that is judged too safe with respect to the design rule in this way is a safety pattern). And).
  • the validity evaluation unit 8 is a processing unit that supports design rule update by presenting such information to the user.
  • step S100 the validity evaluation unit 8 acquires all design rules from the database in order to examine the validity of all the rules registered in the design rule database. At this time, a flag indicating that the design rule is not implemented is set for each acquired design rule.
  • step S105 a design rule whose flag is not processed is acquired as a design rule R to be validated.
  • the flag of each design rule is referred to, and if the check is completed for all the design rules, the validity examination process is terminated. If not completed, the process proceeds to step S110.
  • a model group MS that matches the attribute of the target design rule R is acquired from the model parameter database.
  • the attribute information of the target design rule R when the product type, the component type, and the material type are all NULL, all models are models of the model group MS.
  • the product type and the component type are NULL and iron is defined as the material type, only models whose material type is iron are model models MS in the model parameter database.
  • step S115 when there is no model corresponding to the model group MS, the flag of the design rule is changed to checked, and the validity of the next design rule is examined.
  • step S120 the range of the value of the target design rule branches depending on whether it is greater than or equal to the specified value.
  • step S125 the maximum value of the parameter to be checked in the model group MS is acquired.
  • the design rule parameter is stress
  • all the stresses of the models belonging to the model group MS are searched, and the maximum stress value is set as the maximum value.
  • step S130 the obtained maximum value is set as a representative value.
  • step S135 it is confirmed whether the maximum value is smaller than 0.5 times the reference value of the design rule R. If it is small, it becomes a safety pattern.
  • the maximum value is smaller than 0.5 times the reference value of the design rule R. If it is small, it becomes a safety pattern.
  • the example of the case number 14 takes the maximum value, and the value is about 40 MPa. Since this value is smaller than 0.5 times the reference value (100 MPa) of the design rule R, it becomes a safety pattern.
  • it is assumed that it is smaller than 0.5 times it is convenient if the system user can change the setting.
  • step S140 it is confirmed whether the maximum value is larger than the reference value of the design rule R.
  • the maximum value is larger than the reference value of the design rule R, it becomes a dangerous pattern.
  • the example of the case number 13 takes the maximum value, and the value is about 120 MPa. Since this value is larger than the reference value (100 MPa) of the design rule R, it becomes a dangerous pattern.
  • step S145 a design rule change proposal is output for the design rule corresponding to the safety pattern and the danger pattern. At this time, the design rule flag is changed to checked.
  • FIG. 11 shows an output example of the design rule change proposal.
  • the design rule number, safety pattern or danger pattern, and representative value that are candidates for changing the reference value are output.
  • the minimum value of the check target parameter in the model group MS is acquired for the rule whose value range must be equal to or greater than the specified value in step S150.
  • the design rule parameter is weight
  • all the weights of the models belonging to the model group MS are searched, and the minimum weight is set as the minimum value.
  • step S155 the obtained minimum value is set as a representative value.
  • step S160 it is confirmed whether the minimum value is larger than 1.5 times the reference value of the design rule R. If it is larger, it becomes a safety pattern. For example, in the case of an example in which the design is safe when the safety factor is 3 or more as the reference value of the design rule R, in the example where the minimum value of the safety factor is 4.5, this value is the value of the design rule R. Since it is larger than 1.5 times the reference value (3), it becomes a safety pattern. Here, it is assumed that it is larger than 1.5 times, but it is convenient if the system user can change the setting.
  • step S165 it is confirmed whether the minimum value is smaller than the reference value of the design rule R.
  • the minimum value is smaller than the reference value of the design rule R, it becomes a dangerous pattern.
  • the design is safe when the safety factor is 3 or more as the reference value of the design rule R
  • this value is the reference value of the design rule R Since it is smaller than (3), it becomes a dangerous pattern.
  • FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram of the operation of the design rule change proposal presenting unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 13 is an explanatory diagram of the registered contents of the design rule database changed by the design rule change proposal presenting unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 14 is an explanatory diagram of the operation of the design rule change proposal presenting unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
  • the design rule change proposal presenting section 9 presents the design rule change proposal output by the design rule validity evaluation section 8 to the system user.
  • FIG. 12 shows a screen output example of the design rule change proposal presenting unit.
  • the design rule change presentation unit updates the determination value of the design rule in the design rule database.
  • FIG. 13 shows the registered contents of the design rule database 4 after “acceptance of change” with respect to the design rule number 3. That is, it can be seen that the range of the value of rule number 3 is changed from 100 or less to 46 or less compared to the design rule shown in FIG.
  • the “presentation” button 1102 when the “presentation” button 1102 is selected, the reason and model registered in the design rule change rationale database are displayed as the basis for the corresponding design rule as shown in FIG. The system user can see the reason and notice that he adds a design rule for the strength of the part that supports the heavy object instead of the rule regarding the weight, and can start the examination.
  • the validity of the design rule can be evaluated based on the result of the design rule check, and the design rule change can be presented in a timely manner with proposals for changing the design rule with low validity and information related to the design rule change.
  • An appropriate state can be maintained, and a more appropriate design can be performed using the design rule with high validity.
  • the validity of the design rule used in the design rule check system, the design expert system, etc. is examined, and if it is judged that the validity is low, the proposed change is distributed in a timely manner. It is possible, the design rules can be kept in an appropriate state, and a more appropriate design can be performed.

Landscapes

  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Computer Hardware Design (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Evolutionary Computation (AREA)
  • Geometry (AREA)
  • General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

The purpose of the present invention is to provide a design rule update supporting device capable of timely delivering a proposed change when checking the validity of a design rule used for a design rule check system, a design expert system and so forth and determining that the validity is low. A design rule validity evaluating unit (8) determines the validity of a design rule from a parameter of analysis results registered in a model parameter database (3) and a design rule registered in a design rule database (4), and generates a proposed change for a design rule which needs a change. A design rule proposed change presenting unit (9) presents a proposed change of a design rule generated by the design rule validity evaluating unit (8). In a design rule change reason database (7), a reason why change is unnecessary for a part that does not satisfy a design rule with respect to check results displayed on a check results display unit (6) is registered in association with the design rule.

Description

設計ルール更新支援装置Design rule update support device
　本発明は、製品の開発設計における設計ルールや設計基準を活用する設計ルール更新支援装置に係り、特に、設計ルールや設計基準の妥当性を検討し、設計ルールや設計基準の更新を行う作業の支援を行う設計ルール更新支援装置に関する。 The present invention relates to a design rule update support apparatus that utilizes design rules and design standards in product development and design. In particular, the present invention relates to a work for updating the design rules and design standards by examining the validity of the design rules and design standards. The present invention relates to a design rule update support apparatus that performs support.
　従来の設計ルール更新支援装置としては、第１に、設計ルールのＴＨＥＮ部に設定される設計項目（指定設計項目）及びその設計値と，設計ルールのＩＦ部に設定される要求仕様の項目（指定要求項目）とを含む指定情報を入力し、設計事例ＤＢの中から、設計実績値が前記指定情報の設計値と一致する指定値一致データを検索し、そのデータにおける前記指定要求項目の要求実績値をＩＦ部の要求値の候補に設定し、その候補ごとに、設計事例ＤＢの中で前記要求実績値が当該要求値の候補と一致するデータ件数に対し、前記指定値一致データの中で前記要求実績値が当該要求値の候補と一致するデータ件数が占める占有率を算出し、前記指定情報と前記要求値の候補の中で前記占有率が所定以上のものとが設定された設定ルールの情報を生成するものが知られている（例えば、特許文献１参照）。 As a conventional design rule update support apparatus, firstly, design items (designated design items) set in the THEN part of the design rules, design values thereof, and items of required specifications set in the IF part of the design rules ( Specified information including the specified request item), search the design case DB for specified value matching data whose design actual value matches the design value of the specified information, and request the specified request item in the data The actual value is set as a required value candidate of the IF section, and for each candidate, the number of data in which the required actual value matches the required value candidate in the design case DB The occupancy ratio occupied by the number of data whose request actual value matches the request value candidate is calculated, and the setting is such that the occupancy ratio is greater than or equal to a predetermined value among the designation information and the request value candidate Rule information Those produced are known (e.g., see Patent Document 1).
　第２に、指定設計項目及びその設計値と、指定要求項目及びその要求値とを含む指定情報を入力し、追加要求仕様情報（追加要求項目及び追加要求値）を設定し、設計事例ＤＢにおける指定要求値及び追加要求値を有するデータの中で、指定設計値を有するデータが占める割合が大きく、かつ、設計事例ＤＢにおける指定要求値を有するが指定設計値を有しないデータの中で、追加要求値を有するデータが占める割合が小さい場合に、指定情報と追加要求仕様情報とが設定された設計ルールを生成して登録するものが知られている（例えば、特許文献１参照）。 Secondly, the designation information including the designated design item and its design value, the designation requirement item and its requirement value is input, the additional requirement specification information (addition requirement item and the additional requirement value) is set, and the design case DB Among the data having the specified required value and the additional required value, the ratio of the data having the specified design value is large, and it is added among the data having the specified required value in the design case DB but not having the specified design value. There is known one that generates and registers a design rule in which designation information and additional requirement specification information are set when the ratio of data having a requirement value is small (see, for example, Patent Document 1).
　ここで、特許文献１および特許文献２に記載のものは、条件式と判定結果からなるＩＦ－ＴＨＥＮで記述される設計ルールを生成する装置である。ここでは、設計項目およびその設計値と、要求項目およびその要求値をシステム使用者が指定し、設計事例ＤＢを検索し、設計項目の値が設計値であり、要求項目が要求値である事例数が、設計項目の値が設計値である事例数に占める占有率を算出し、占有率が所定以上のものを設計ルールとして生成している。 Here, the devices described in Patent Document 1 and Patent Document 2 are devices that generate a design rule described in IF-THEN including conditional expressions and determination results. Here, the system user designates the design item and its design value, the requirement item and its requirement value, searches the design case DB, the case where the value of the design item is the design value, and the requirement item is the requirement value The occupancy ratio in the number of cases where the value of the design item is the design value is calculated, and an occupancy ratio that is greater than or equal to a predetermined value is generated as a design rule.
　第３に、製品設計において、設計作業の流れに即して起動され、設計作業を設計者との連携により管理すると共に、設計者に対して設計ルールの遵守を促しつつ、設計作業の進捗に合わせてチェック機能を始動させる設計ルール・チェックシステムにおいて、部品設計や組立設計、モールド部品設計など種々の設計内容に合わせた複数の設計プロセスの中から、所望の設計プロセスを選択する手段を設けることにより構成するものが知られている（例えば、特許文献１参照）。 Third, in product design, it is started in accordance with the flow of design work, and the design work is managed in cooperation with the designer, and the design work progresses while encouraging the designer to comply with the design rules. In the design rule check system that starts the check function at the same time, a means for selecting a desired design process from a plurality of design processes according to various design contents such as part design, assembly design, and mold part design should be provided. (See, for example, Patent Document 1).
　特許文献３に記載のものは、ルールライブラリに登録された設計ルールを用いて、現設計のチェックを行い、ルール違反や設計内容として注意すべき事柄等を会話的に画面に表示するものである。 The one described in Patent Document 3 uses a design rule registered in a rule library to check the current design and interactively display a rule violation or matters to be noted as design contents on the screen. .
特開２０１０－１２８６９９号公報JP 2010-128699 A 特開２０１０－１２８７１０号公報JP 2010-128710 A 特開平８－３６５９５号公報JP-A-8-36595
　しかしながら、特許文献１及び特許文献２記載のものでは、システム使用者が設計項目およびその設計値と、要求項目およびその要求値を入力する必要があり、設計ルール生成の可否は使用者の経験や知見に依存する。また、設計事例ＤＢの更新に係わらず、使用者の要求に応じて設計ルールの生成が行われるため、生成可能な設計ルールが全て生成されていて、設計事例ＤＢの変更が少ない場合には、設計ルール生成作業を行っても新たなルール生成が行えず、作業が無駄になる場合がある。 However, in the devices described in Patent Document 1 and Patent Document 2, it is necessary for the system user to input the design item and its design value, and the required item and its required value. Depends on knowledge. In addition, since the design rules are generated according to the user's request regardless of the update of the design case DB, all the design rules that can be generated are generated, and there are few changes in the design case DB, Even if the design rule generation work is performed, a new rule cannot be generated, and the work may be wasted.
　また、特許文献３記載のものでは、設計ルールは、判断基準の変更や、設計での不確定性要因の減少に応じて、見直されていくべきものであるが、更新が行われることは少なく、古いルールが継続して使われているのが現状である。 Moreover, in the thing of patent document 3, although the design rule should be reviewed according to the change of a judgment standard or the decrease of the uncertainty factor in design, it is rarely updated. The old rules are still being used.
　本発明の目的は、設計ルールチェックシステムや設計エキスパートシステムなどで用いる設計ルールの妥当性を検討し、妥当性が低いと判断された場合に変更案をタイムリーに配信可能な設計ルール更新支援装置を提供することにある。 An object of the present invention is to examine the validity of a design rule used in a design rule check system, a design expert system, and the like, and when it is determined that the validity is low, a design rule update support device that can distribute a change plan in a timely manner Is to provide.
　（１）上記目的を達成するために、本発明は、入出力装置を通じて形状モデルや解析結果などのモデル情報を入力するモデル入力手段と、該モデル入力手段により入力された形状モデルが登録されるモデルパラメータデータベースと、設計ルールの適用対象範囲および形状モデルもしくは解析結果のパラメータとそのとりうる範囲を対応づけて、前記設計ルールが登録される設計ルールデータベースと、前記モデルパラメータデータベースに登録された形状モデルや解析結果のパラメータと、前記計ルールデータベースに登録された設計ルールの照合を行い、チェック結果を出力する設計ルールチェック手段と、該設計ルールチェック手段によるチェック結果を表示するチェック結果表示手段と、前記モデルパラメータデータベースに登録された解析結果のパラメータと、前記設計ルールデータベースに登録された設計ルールとから、前記設計ルールの妥当性を判断し、変更が必要な設計ルールについて変更案を生成する設計ルール妥当性評価手段と、該設計ルール妥当性評価手段により生成された設計ルールの変更案を提示する設計ルール変更案提示手段を備えるようにしたものである。　
　かかる構成により、設計ルールチェックシステムや設計エキスパートシステムなどで用いる設計ルールの妥当性を検討し、妥当性が低いと判断された場合に変更案をタイムリーに配信可能となる。 (1) In order to achieve the above object, the present invention registers a model input means for inputting model information such as a shape model and an analysis result through an input / output device, and a shape model input by the model input means. A model parameter database, a design rule database in which the design rule is registered by associating a design rule application target range and a shape model or analysis result parameter with a possible range, and a shape registered in the model parameter database A model or analysis result parameter and a design rule registered in the total rule database, design rule check means for outputting a check result, and a check result display means for displaying the check result by the design rule check means; Registered in the model parameter database Design rule validity evaluation means for determining the validity of the design rule from the analysis result parameter and the design rule registered in the design rule database, and generating a proposed change for the design rule that needs to be changed, A design rule change proposal presenting means for presenting a design rule change proposal generated by the design rule validity evaluation means is provided.
With this configuration, the validity of the design rule used in the design rule check system, the design expert system, or the like is examined, and if it is determined that the validity is low, the proposed change can be distributed in a timely manner.
　（２）上記（１）において、好ましくは、前記設計ルール妥当性評価手段は、妥当性の検討として、設計ルールの判定基準と、モデルパラメータデータベースに登録されたモデル群のパラメータを比較するようにしたものである。 (2) In the above (1), preferably, the design rule validity evaluation means compares the determination rule of the design rule with the parameters of the model group registered in the model parameter database as a study of validity. It is a thing.
　（３）上記（１）において、好ましくは、前記チェック結果表示手段は、チェック結果を表示し、設計ルールを満足しない部位に関しては、変更の要否を問い合わせし、変更不要の場合にはその理由の入力を促し、前記変更不要の場合の理由を設計ルールに関連付けて登録される設計ルール変更根拠データベースを備え、前記設計ルール変更案提示部は、設計ルールの変更案に合わせて、前記設計ルール変更根拠データベースに登録された関連する変更不要の場合の理由を提示するようにしたものである。 (3) In the above (1), preferably, the check result display means displays the check result, and inquires whether or not a change is necessary for a part that does not satisfy the design rule. And a design rule change rationale database registered in association with the design rule in the case where the change is not necessary, and the design rule change proposal presenting unit is adapted to the design rule change proposal in accordance with the design rule change proposal. The reason why there is no related change registered in the change rationale database is presented.
　本発明によれば、設計ルールチェックシステムや設計エキスパートシステムなどで用いる設計ルールの妥当性を検討し、妥当性が低いと判断された場合に変更案をタイムリーに配信可能となる。
According to the present invention, the validity of a design rule used in a design rule check system, a design expert system, or the like is examined, and a change proposal can be distributed in a timely manner when it is determined that the validity is low.
本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置の構成を示すブロック図である。It is a block diagram which shows the structure of the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いるモデル入力部の作用の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of an effect | action of the model input part used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いるモデルパラメータデータベースのデータ構成の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of the data structure of the model parameter database used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルールデータベースのデータ構成の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of the data structure of the design rule database used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルールチェック部の動作を示すフローチャートである。It is a flowchart which shows operation | movement of the design rule check part used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルールチェック部によるチェック結果の例の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of the example of the check result by the design rule check part used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いるチェック結果表示部による表示例の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of the example of a display by the check result display part used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール変更根拠データベースのデータ構成の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of the data structure of the design rule change basis database used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール妥当性評価部における妥当性検討の概念の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of the concept of the validity examination in the design rule validity evaluation part used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール妥当性評価部における妥当性検討の概念の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of the concept of the validity examination in the design rule validity evaluation part used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール妥当性評価部における妥当性検討の概念の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of the concept of the validity examination in the design rule validity evaluation part used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール妥当性評価部の処理を示すフローチャートである。It is a flowchart which shows the process of the design rule validity evaluation part used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール妥当性評価部における設計ルール変更案の出力例の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of the example of an output of the design rule change plan in the design rule validity evaluation part used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール変更案提示部の作用の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of an effect | action of the design rule change proposal presentation part used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール変更案提示部により変更された設計ルールデータベースの登録内容の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of the registration content of the design rule database changed by the design rule change proposal presentation part used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention. 本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール変更案提示部の作用の説明図である。It is explanatory drawing of an effect | action of the design rule change proposal presentation part used for the design rule update assistance apparatus by one Embodiment of this invention.
　以下、図１～図１４を用いて、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置の構成及び動作について説明する。　
　最初に、図１を用いて、本実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置の構成について説明する。　
　図１は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置の構成を示すブロック図である。 Hereinafter, the configuration and operation of the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to FIGS.
First, the configuration of the design rule update support apparatus according to the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIG.
FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a configuration of a design rule update support apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention.
　設計ルール更新支援装置１００は、入出力装置１と、モデル入力部２と、モデルパラメータデータベース３と、設計ルールデータベース４と、設計ルールチェック部５と、チェック結果表示部６とに加えて、新たに、設計ルール変更根拠データベース７と、設計ルール妥当性評価部８と、設計ルール変更案提示部９とを備えている。すなわち、従来の設計ルールチェック装置に、設計ルールの妥当性評価部７と、設計ルール変更根拠データベース８と、設計ルール変更案提示部９を追加した構成となっている。 In addition to the input / output device 1, the model input unit 2, the model parameter database 3, the design rule database 4, the design rule check unit 5, and the check result display unit 6, the design rule update support device 100 In addition, a design rule change rationale database 7, a design rule validity evaluation unit 8, and a design rule change plan presentation unit 9 are provided. In other words, the design rule validity evaluation unit 7, the design rule change reason database 8, and the design rule change plan presentation unit 9 are added to the conventional design rule check device.
　モデル入力部２は、システム使用者が入出力装置１を通じて形状モデルや解析結果などのモデル情報を入力する。モデル入力部２の詳細については、図２を用いて後述する。モデルパラメータデータベース３は、モデル入力部２に入力されたモデルを登録する。モデルパラメータデータベースの詳細については、図３を用いて後述する。設計ルールデータベース４は、ルールの適用対象範囲および形状モデルもしくは解析結果のパラメータとそのとりうる範囲を対応づけて登録する。設計ルールチェック部５は、入力された形状モデルや解析結果のパラメータと設計ルールの照合を行い、チェック結果を出力する。設計ルールチェック部５の詳細については、図４を用いて後述する。チェック結果表示部６は、設計ルールチェック部５によるチェック結果を表示し、ルールを満足しない部位に関しては、変更の要否を問い合わせし、変更不要の場合にはその理由の入力を促す。チェック結果表示部６の詳細については、図７を用いて後述する。 The model input unit 2 allows the system user to input model information such as a shape model and an analysis result through the input / output device 1. Details of the model input unit 2 will be described later with reference to FIG. The model parameter database 3 registers the model input to the model input unit 2. Details of the model parameter database will be described later with reference to FIG. The design rule database 4 registers the applicable range of the rule and the shape model or analysis result parameter in association with the possible range. The design rule check unit 5 collates the input shape model and analysis result parameters with the design rule, and outputs the check result. Details of the design rule check unit 5 will be described later with reference to FIG. The check result display unit 6 displays the check result by the design rule check unit 5 and inquires about the necessity of the change for a part that does not satisfy the rule, and prompts the user to input the reason if the change is not necessary. Details of the check result display unit 6 will be described later with reference to FIG.
　設計ルール変更根拠データベース７は、変更不要の場合の理由を設計ルールに関連付けて登録する。設計ルール変更根拠データベース７の詳細については、図８を用いて後述する。設計ルール妥当性評価部８は、形状モデルと解析モデルと、設計ルールデータベースに登録された設計ルールと、設計ルール変更根拠データベースに登録された設計ルールと理由から、設計ルールの妥当性を判断し、変更が必要な設計ルールについて変更案を生成する。設計ルール妥当性評価部８の詳細については、図１０を用いて後述する。設計ルール変更案提示部９は、設計ルール変更案と設計ルール変更根拠データベースに登録された設計ルールと理由に基づき、設計ルールの変更案を提示し、システム使用者に提示する。設計ルール変更案提示部９の詳細については、図１２を用いて後述する。 The design rule change rationale database 7 registers the reason when no change is necessary in association with the design rule. Details of the design rule change basis database 7 will be described later with reference to FIG. The design rule validity evaluation unit 8 determines the validity of the design rule based on the shape model, the analysis model, the design rule registered in the design rule database, and the design rule registered in the design rule change basis database and the reason. Then, a change proposal is generated for the design rule that needs to be changed. Details of the design rule validity evaluation unit 8 will be described later with reference to FIG. The design rule change proposal presenting section 9 presents a design rule change proposal based on the design rule change proposal and the design rule registered in the design rule change basis database, and presents it to the system user. Details of the design rule change proposal presenting unit 9 will be described later with reference to FIG.
　次に、図２を用いて、本実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いるモデル入力部２の作用について説明する。　
　図２は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いるモデル入力部の作用の説明図である。 Next, the operation of the model input unit 2 used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIG.
FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram of the operation of the model input unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
　モデル入力部２は、システム使用者に入出力装置１を通じて設計ルールチェックを行うモデルの入力を促す。図２は、モデル入力部２によって、入出力装置１に表示される入力モデル入力画面の例を示している。 The model input unit 2 prompts the system user to input a model for performing a design rule check through the input / output device 1. FIG. 2 shows an example of an input model input screen displayed on the input / output device 1 by the model input unit 2.
　システム使用者は、図２に示すモデル入力画面に応じて、製品の形状モデルや解析結果などの情報を、入出力装置１であるマウスポインタ２０１を用いて選択し、「登録」ボタン２０２を選択することでモデルの入力を行う。 In accordance with the model input screen shown in FIG. 2, the system user selects information such as a product shape model and analysis result using the mouse pointer 201 which is the input / output device 1, and selects the “Register” button 202. To input the model.
　なお、図２に示す例では、モデルの一覧から対象モデルを選択する方式としたが、モデルの名称を入力する方法や、本装置上で形状モデルを作成したり、解析計算の実行により解析結果を作成する方法など、チェック対象のモデルを特定する手段であればいずれの方式を用いてもよいものである。さらに、後に説明する設計ルールの属性情報として定義されている、「製品情報」２０３や「部品情報」２０４を「登録」ボタン選択前入力するようにしてもよいものである。 In the example shown in FIG. 2, the target model is selected from the model list. However, the analysis result is obtained by inputting a model name, creating a shape model on the apparatus, or executing analysis calculation. Any method may be used as long as it is a means for specifying a model to be checked, such as a method for creating a model. Further, “product information” 203 and “part information” 204, which are defined as design rule attribute information described later, may be input before selecting the “Register” button.
　本実施形態の設計ルール更新支援装置１では、ここで入力されたモデルから取得可能なパラメータに関してチェックを行う。例えば、形状モデルについては、形状の寸法や穴の中心位置、重量などＣＡＤの形状から取得可能なパラメータおよびそれを演算して取得可能なパラメータ穴間の距離などがチェック対象である。また、例えば、解析結果については、構造解析の場合には、応力の値、歪みの値など解析結果ファイルから取得可能なパラメータおよびそれを演算して取得可能な主応力の方向などがチェック対象となる。ここで得られたパラメータおよびシステム使用者によって入力された「製品情報」２０３や「部品情報」２０４は、システム使用者の「登録」ボタン２０２選択時に、次に示すモデルパラメータデータベースに格納される。 In the design rule update support device 1 of this embodiment, the parameters that can be acquired from the model input here are checked. For example, with respect to the shape model, parameters that can be acquired from the CAD shape, such as the size of the shape, the center position of the hole, and the weight, and the distance between the parameter holes that can be acquired by calculating the parameters are subject to check. In addition, for example, in the case of structural analysis, analysis results include parameters that can be acquired from the analysis result file, such as stress values and strain values, and the direction of principal stress that can be acquired by calculating them. Become. The parameters obtained here and the “product information” 203 and “part information” 204 input by the system user are stored in the model parameter database shown below when the “register” button 202 is selected by the system user.
　次に、図３を用いて、本実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いるモデルパラメータデータベース３のデータ構成について説明する。　
　図３は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いるモデルパラメータデータベースのデータ構成の説明図である。 Next, the data configuration of the model parameter database 3 used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIG.
FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram of a data configuration of a model parameter database used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
　モデルパラメータデータベース３は、モデル入力部２で入力されたチェック対象モデルを格納するデータベースである。図３に示すように、モデルパラメータデータベース３では、モデルを特定する識別子に対応づけて、設計ルールチェック部５でチェックを行うパラメータを表形式で格納している。パラメータを格納する際、入力されたパラメータの演算によって取得可能なパラメータについては、登録時に演算を行う手段をデータベースの登録プログラムに付与する。 The model parameter database 3 is a database that stores the model to be checked input by the model input unit 2. As shown in FIG. 3, in the model parameter database 3, parameters to be checked by the design rule check unit 5 are stored in a table format in association with an identifier for specifying a model. When storing parameters, for the parameters that can be acquired by calculating the input parameters, a means for performing the calculation at the time of registration is given to the registration program of the database.
　なお、該当するパラメータがない場合には、表の値にＮｏｎｅを追加する。また、図３に示すように、モデルの識別子に合わせて、製品種類，部品種類，材料種類，登録日時などモデルを分類するための属性情報を付与して登録する。 If there is no applicable parameter, add None to the table value. Further, as shown in FIG. 3, in accordance with the identifier of the model, attribute information for classifying the model such as product type, part type, material type, registration date and time is added and registered.
　なお、このデータベースを用いずに、設計ルールチェック５において、チェックを行う際に、入力された形状モデルや解析結果からパラメータを取得する構成をとってもよいものである。この場合には、モデルパラメータデータベースの代わりに、形状モデルもしくは解析結果を管理するデータベースを構成に含める。なお、ここでは、図３のＮｏ２のモデルがシステム使用者によって入力されたとする。 It should be noted that without using this database, the design rule check 5 may be configured to acquire parameters from the input shape model or analysis result when performing the check. In this case, a database for managing the shape model or the analysis result is included in the configuration instead of the model parameter database. Here, it is assumed that the model No. 2 in FIG. 3 is input by the system user.
　次に、図４を用いて、本実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルールデータベース４のデータ構成について説明する。　
　図４は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルールデータベースのデータ構成の説明図である。 Next, the data structure of the design rule database 4 used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIG.
FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram of the data structure of the design rule database used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
　設計ルールデータベース４は、ルールの適用対象範囲および形状モデルもしくは解析結果のパラメータとそのとりうる範囲を対応づけて登録するデータベースである。図４に示す、設計ルールデータベース４において、ルールの適用対象範囲とは、モデルパラメータデータベースに登録された属性情報の値のことである。Ｎｏ１のルールは、形状モデルにおいて重量が３０ｋｇ以下でなければならないというルールである。適用対象範囲が、製品種類，部品種類，材料種類ともにＮＵＬＬであるので、全ての形状モデルに対して適用される設計ルールであることを示している。Ｎｏ３のルールは、適用対象範囲の材料種類の欄に、鉄が定義されているため、材料が鉄である形状モデルについては、応力値が１００ＭＰａ以下でなければならないというルールである。このように、適用対象範囲を限定することで、より詳細な設計ルールチェックを行える。 The design rule database 4 is a database for registering the applicable range of the rule and the shape model or analysis result parameter in association with the possible range. In the design rule database 4 shown in FIG. 4, a rule application target range is a value of attribute information registered in the model parameter database. The rule No1 is a rule that the weight must be 30 kg or less in the shape model. Since the application target range is NULL for all product types, component types, and material types, it indicates that the design rule is applied to all shape models. The rule No. 3 is a rule that the stress value must be 100 MPa or less for the shape model in which the material is iron because iron is defined in the material type column of the application target range. Thus, by limiting the application target range, a more detailed design rule check can be performed.
　なお、ここでは、属性として製品種類，部品種類，材料種類の三つをあげたが、３次元ＣＡＤモデルの部品名称やアセンブリ名称など、モデルを特定可能なテキスト情報であれば、属性として用いることができる。 Here, three types of product type, part type, and material type are given as attributes. However, text information that can specify a model such as a part name or assembly name of a three-dimensional CAD model is used as an attribute. Can do.
　次に、図５及び図６を用いて、本実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルールチェック部５の動作について説明する。　
　図５は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルールチェック部の動作を示すフローチャートである。図６は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルールチェック部によるチェック結果の例の説明図である。 Next, the operation of the design rule check unit 5 used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIGS.
FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing the operation of the design rule check unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 6 is an explanatory diagram of an example of a check result by the design rule check unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
　設計ルールチェック部５は、モデルパラメータデータベース３に登録されたパラメータと、設計ルールデータベース４に登録された設計ルールの照合を行い、チェック結果を出力する。ここでは、エラーとなるルールとそのパラメータをチェック結果として出力する。 The design rule check unit 5 collates the parameter registered in the model parameter database 3 with the design rule registered in the design rule database 4, and outputs the check result. Here, the error rule and its parameters are output as the check result.
　図５のステップＳ１０において、設計ルールチェック部５は、設計ルールデータベースに登録された全ての設計ルールを取得する。この際、取得した各設計ルールに対して、未実施を表すフラグを立てておく。 In step S10 in FIG. 5, the design rule check unit 5 acquires all design rules registered in the design rule database. At this time, a flag indicating that the design rule is not implemented is set for each acquired design rule.
　ステップＳ２０において、設計ルールチェック部５は、各設計ルールのフラグを参照し、全ての設計ルールのチェックが終了しているか確認する。全ての設計ルールのチェックが終了しているならば、設計ルールチェック処理を終了する。全ルールのチェック処理が終了していない場合には、ステップＳ３０～Ｓ８０の処理を行い、ここで得られた設計ルールに基づくルールチェックを実施する。 In step S20, the design rule check unit 5 refers to the flags of each design rule and confirms whether all the design rules have been checked. If all the design rules have been checked, the design rule check process ends. If all the rules have not been checked, steps S30 to S80 are performed, and a rule check based on the design rule obtained here is performed.
　ステップＳ３０において、設計ルールチェック部５は、モデルパラメータデータベースに登録された全てのモデルを取得する。この際、取得した各モデルに対して、未実施を表すフラグを立てておく。 In step S30, the design rule check unit 5 acquires all models registered in the model parameter database. At this time, a flag indicating that the model is not implemented is set for each acquired model.
　ステップＳ４０において、設計ルールチェック部５は、各モデルのフラグを参照し、全てのモデルのチェックが終了しているか確認する。全てのモデルのチェックが終了しているならば、該設計ルールのフラグをチェック済みに変更し、次の設計ルールのチェック処理に移る。全モデルのチェック処理が終了していない場合には、ステップＳ５０に移る。 In step S40, the design rule check unit 5 refers to the flag of each model and confirms whether all models have been checked. If all models have been checked, the design rule flag is changed to checked, and the process proceeds to the next design rule check process. If all models have not been checked, the process proceeds to step S50.
　ステップＳ５０において、設計ルールチェック部５は、チェック対象設計ルールの属性とチェック対象モデルの属性が一致するかを確認する。ここでは、設計ルールの属性でＮＵＬＬ以外が入っている属性の値が、チェック対象モデルの属性の値と一致するかを確認する。例えば、設計ルールの属性で製品種類がモータでその他の属性がＮＵＬＬであったとする。設計ルールの属性でＮＵＬＬでない属性は製品種類で値がモータであるから、チェック対象モデルの属性において製品種類がモータであれば、その他の属性にいかなる値が入っている場合にも、属性は一致すると判断される。例えば、また、チェック対象モデルの属性が、製品種類がモータ、部品種類がＮＵＬＬ、材料種類が鉄の場合も属性一致と判断される。一致する場合には、ステップＳ６０に移る。一致しない場合には、該モデルのフラグをチェック済みに変更し、次のモデルのチェック処理に移る。 In step S50, the design rule check unit 5 confirms whether the attribute of the check target design rule matches the attribute of the check target model. Here, it is confirmed whether or not the attribute value of the design rule attribute other than NULL matches the attribute value of the check target model. For example, it is assumed that the attribute of the design rule is that the product type is a motor and the other attributes are NULL. Since the attribute of the design rule that is not NULL is the product type and the value is the motor, the attribute matches even if the other attribute contains any value if the product type is the motor in the attribute of the model to be checked It is judged. For example, if the attribute of the model to be checked is the product type is motor, the component type is NULL, and the material type is iron, it is determined that the attribute matches. If they match, the process proceeds to step S60. If they do not match, the flag of the model is changed to checked, and the process proceeds to the next model check process.
　ステップＳ６０において、設計ルールチェック部５は、チェック対象モデルにチェック対象設計ルールのパラメータが登録されているかチェックする。例えば、設計ルールのパラメータが応力で、チェック対象モデルの応力のパラメータにｎｏｎｅが登録されている場合には、チェック処理は行わない。ｎｏｎｅ以外が登録されている場合には、ステップＳ７０に移る。ｎｏｎｅが登録されている場合には、該モデルのフラグをチェック済みに変更し、次のモデルのチェック処理に移る。 In step S60, the design rule check unit 5 checks whether the parameters of the check target design rule are registered in the check target model. For example, when the design rule parameter is stress and none is registered as the stress parameter of the model to be checked, the check process is not performed. If anything other than none is registered, the process proceeds to step S70. If none is registered, the flag of the model is changed to checked, and the process proceeds to the next model check process.
　ステップＳ７０において、設計ルールチェック部５は、チェック対象モデルのパラメータ値が、チェック対象設計ルールのパラメータの値の範囲内であるか確認する。また、該モデルのフラグをチェック済みに変更する。範囲外である場合には、ルール違反となりステップＳ８０に移る。 In step S70, the design rule check unit 5 confirms whether the parameter value of the check target model is within the parameter value range of the check target design rule. Also, the flag of the model is changed to checked. If it is out of range, the rule is violated and the process proceeds to step S80.
　ステップＳ８０において、設計ルールチェック部５は、ルール違反をチェック結果ファイルに出力する。ここでは、モデルに対して違反指定ルールを対応づけてファイルに出力する。 In step S80, the design rule check unit 5 outputs the rule violation to a check result file. Here, violation specification rules are associated with the model and output to a file.
　図６は、ルールチェック部５によるチェック結果の例を示している。図３に記載のモデルＮｏ２においては、重量が３５ｋｇ、材料が鉄で応力が１５０ＭＰａであるため、図４に記載のルールＮｏ１、Ｎｏ３に違反するので、図６に示すような結果ファイルが出力される。 FIG. 6 shows an example of a check result by the rule check unit 5. In model No. 2 shown in FIG. 3, since the weight is 35 kg, the material is iron and the stress is 150 MPa, the rules No. 1 and No. 3 shown in FIG. 4 are violated, so a result file as shown in FIG. 6 is output. The
　次に、図７を用いて、本実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いるチェック結果表示部６による表示例について説明する。　
　図７は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いるチェック結果表示部による表示例の説明図である。 Next, a display example by the check result display unit 6 used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIG.
FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram of a display example by the check result display unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
　チェック結果表示部６は、チェック結果として、図６に示すように、違反しているルールを表示する。違反しているルールよっては、ルールを満足するように設計変更する場合が困難な場合があるので、ルール違反を容認しなければならないことがある。例えば製品のコストと意匠性など、両方を同時に満足することが困難な場合がある。この場合、画面上の「容認」ボタンを押してルール違反を容認できる。この際、判断理由は、設計根拠として有用な情報であり、設計ルールの検討にも有効なため、満足できなかったルールに関連付けてその理由の入力を促す。ここで、全ての設計ルールを満足するか、ルール違反を容認し、判断理由を入力しないと、設計業務を先に進められないような仕掛けを作っておけば、チェック漏れ防止につながり、設計の品質向上が図れる。 The check result display unit 6 displays the rule that has been violated as a check result, as shown in FIG. Depending on the rule that has been violated, it may be difficult to change the design so that the rule is satisfied, so it may be necessary to accept the rule violation. For example, it may be difficult to satisfy both the product cost and designability at the same time. In this case, the rule violation can be accepted by pressing the “accept” button on the screen. At this time, the reason for determination is information useful as a design basis and is also effective for studying the design rule. Therefore, the reason for determination is prompted in association with a rule that is not satisfied. Here, if you make a mechanism that prevents the design work from proceeding unless you satisfy all the design rules or accept the rule violation and enter the reason for the decision, it will lead to prevention of check omissions. Quality can be improved.
　ここでは、図７記載のルール違反Ｎｏ３に関しては、ルールを満足する形状に変更し、ルール違反Ｎｏ１については、この部品を支える支持部品の強度評価を行い、安全性を確認したとして、理由として、「支持部品について強度評価の結果安全性確認済み」を入力する。ここで入力された理由は、次に説明する設計ルール変更根拠データベースに登録される。 Here, regarding the rule violation No. 3 described in FIG. 7, the shape is changed to satisfy the rule, and for the rule violation No. 1, the strength of the supporting parts supporting this part is evaluated and the safety is confirmed. Enter “Safety confirmed as a result of strength evaluation for supporting parts”. The reason entered here is registered in the design rule change rationale database described below.
　次に、図８を用いて、本実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール変更根拠データベース７のデータ構成について説明する。　
　図８は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール変更根拠データベースのデータ構成の説明図である。 Next, the data structure of the design rule change rationale database 7 used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIG.
FIG. 8 is an explanatory diagram of the data configuration of the design rule change basis database used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
　設計ルール変更根拠データベース７は、変更不要の場合の理由を設計ルールに関連付けて登録できるデータベースである。チェック結果表示部６での、理由の入力に応じて、図８のように、設計ルール、理由に合わせて、ルール違反を起こしたモデルを対応づけて登録する。 The design rule change rationale database 7 is a database in which the reason for no change required can be registered in association with the design rule. In accordance with the input of the reason in the check result display unit 6, as shown in FIG. 8, the model that caused the rule violation is registered in association with the design rule and the reason.
　次に、図９～図１１を用いて、本実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール妥当性評価部８の作用について説明する。　
　図９Ａ，図９Ｂ，図９Ｃは、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール妥当性評価部における妥当性検討の概念の説明図である。図１０は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール妥当性評価部の処理を示すフローチャートである。図１１は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール妥当性評価部における設計ルール変更案の出力例の説明図である。 Next, the operation of the design rule validity evaluation unit 8 used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIGS.
FIG. 9A, FIG. 9B, and FIG. 9C are explanatory diagrams of the concept of validity examination in the design rule validity evaluation unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 10 is a flowchart showing the processing of the design rule validity evaluation unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 11 is an explanatory diagram of an output example of a design rule change proposal in the design rule validity evaluation unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
　設計ルール妥当性評価部８は、設計ルールチェックが終了したのち、設計ルールの妥当性を検討する。ここで妥当性の検証とは、設計ルールをより厳しいパラメータに変更するべきか、もしくは、より緩める方がよいかを検討するものである。 The design rule validity evaluation unit 8 examines the validity of the design rule after the design rule check is completed. Here, the verification of validity is to examine whether the design rule should be changed to a stricter parameter or whether it should be loosened.
　最初に、図９Ａ，図９Ｂ，図９Ｃにより、妥当性検討の概念について説明する。図９Ａ，図９Ｂ，図９Ｃは、モデルパラメータデータベースに格納された解析結果の応力値を、事例番号を横軸（１～２０）、応力値を縦軸として作成したグラフである。応力が１００ＭＰａ以下かという設計ルールを例にとると、図９Ａに示すように、１００ＭＰａよりわずかに小さい範囲に応力値が集中するのが妥当な設計といえる。 First, the concept of validity examination will be described with reference to FIGS. 9A, 9B, and 9C. FIG. 9A, FIG. 9B, and FIG. 9C are graphs in which the stress values of the analysis results stored in the model parameter database are created with the case number as the horizontal axis (1 to 20) and the stress value as the vertical axis. Taking the design rule as to whether the stress is 100 MPa or less as an example, as shown in FIG. 9A, it can be said that the reasonable design is that stress values are concentrated in a range slightly smaller than 100 MPa.
　一方、図９Ｂに示す例では、例えば４０ＭＰａ以下に事例が集中しており妥当とはいえない。これは、設計のミス、もしくは、本来は判定値を例えば４０ＭＰａと小さくしておくべきであったかのいずれかの場合と考えられる（このように設計ルールに関して安全側すぎる判断となるパターンを、安全パターンとする）。 On the other hand, in the example shown in FIG. 9B, for example, cases are concentrated at 40 MPa or less, which is not appropriate. This is considered to be a case where either a design error or the judgment value should have been reduced to, for example, 40 MPa originally (a pattern that is judged too safe with respect to the design rule in this way is a safety pattern). And).
　また、図９Ｃに示す例では、１００ＭＰａを超える解析事例があり、本来は判定値を１２０ＭＰａと大きしておくべきであったか、代替となる判断基準があるかのいずれかの場合と考えられる（このように設計ルールに関して危険側すぎる判断となるパターンを、危険パターンとする）。すなわち、図９Ｂや図９Ｃに示したような状況な場合が、設計ルールが妥当でない場合といえる。 Further, in the example shown in FIG. 9C, there is an analysis example exceeding 100 MPa, and it is considered that the determination value should be originally set to 120 MPa or there is an alternative determination criterion (this Thus, a pattern that is too dangerous for the design rule is defined as a dangerous pattern). That is, the situation shown in FIGS. 9B and 9C can be said to be a case where the design rule is not valid.
　妥当性評価部８は、上述のようなこのような情報を使用者に提示することで、設計ルール更新の支援を行う処理部である。 The validity evaluation unit 8 is a processing unit that supports design rule update by presenting such information to the user.
　妥当性評価部８は、ステップＳ１００において、設計ルールデータベースに登録された全てのルールについて妥当性の検討を行うため、全設計ルールをデータベースから取得する。この際、取得した各設計ルールに対して、未実施を表すフラグを立てる。 In step S100, the validity evaluation unit 8 acquires all design rules from the database in order to examine the validity of all the rules registered in the design rule database. At this time, a flag indicating that the design rule is not implemented is set for each acquired design rule.
　次に、ステップＳ１０５において、フラグが未処理である設計ルールを妥当性検証対象の設計ルールＲとして取得する。各設計ルールのフラグを参照し、全ての設計ルールについてチェックが完了している場合には、妥当性検討処理を終了する。完了していない場合には、ステップＳ１１０に移る。 Next, in step S105, a design rule whose flag is not processed is acquired as a design rule R to be validated. The flag of each design rule is referred to, and if the check is completed for all the design rules, the validity examination process is terminated. If not completed, the process proceeds to step S110.
　次に、ステップＳ１１０において、対象設計ルールＲの属性に合致するモデル群ＭＳを、モデルパラメータデータベースから取得する。例えば、対象設計ルールＲの属性情報において、製品種類、部品種類、材料種類ともにＮＵＬＬの場合には、全てのモデルがモデル群ＭＳのモデルとなる。製品種類、部品種類がＮＵＬＬで、材料種類として鉄が定義されている場合には、モデルパラメータデータベースにおいて、材料種類が鉄であるモデルのみが、モデル群ＭＳのモデルとなる。 Next, in step S110, a model group MS that matches the attribute of the target design rule R is acquired from the model parameter database. For example, in the attribute information of the target design rule R, when the product type, the component type, and the material type are all NULL, all models are models of the model group MS. When the product type and the component type are NULL and iron is defined as the material type, only models whose material type is iron are model models MS in the model parameter database.
　次に、ステップＳ１１５において、モデル群ＭＳに該当するモデルがない場合には、該設計ルールのフラグをチェック済みに変更し、次の設計ルールの妥当性検討に移る。 Next, in step S115, when there is no model corresponding to the model group MS, the flag of the design rule is changed to checked, and the validity of the next design rule is examined.
　次に、ステップＳ１２０において、対象設計ルールの値の範囲について、規定値以上か規定値以下かによって分岐する。 Next, in step S120, the range of the value of the target design rule branches depending on whether it is greater than or equal to the specified value.
　値の範囲が規定値以下でなければならないルールについては、ステップＳ１２５において、モデル群ＭＳにおけるチェック対象パラメータの最大値を取得する。例えば、設計ルールのパラメータが、応力の場合には、モデル群ＭＳに帰属するモデルの応力を全て検索し、最大の応力値を最大値とする。 For the rule that the value range must be equal to or less than the specified value, in step S125, the maximum value of the parameter to be checked in the model group MS is acquired. For example, when the design rule parameter is stress, all the stresses of the models belonging to the model group MS are searched, and the maximum stress value is set as the maximum value.
　次に、ステップＳ１３０において、求めた最大値を代表値とする。 Next, in step S130, the obtained maximum value is set as a representative value.
　次に、ステップＳ１３５において、最大値が設計ルールＲの基準値の０．５倍より小さいか確認する。小さい場合には、安全パターンとなる。例えば、図９Ｂに示した例では、事例番号１４の例が最大値をとり、その値は４０ＭＰａ程度である。この値は、設計ルールＲの基準値（１００ＭＰａ）の０．５倍よりも小さいので安全パターンとなる。なおここでは、０．５倍より小さいとしたが、システム使用者が設定を変更できるようにしておくと、使い勝手がよい。 Next, in step S135, it is confirmed whether the maximum value is smaller than 0.5 times the reference value of the design rule R. If it is small, it becomes a safety pattern. For example, in the example shown in FIG. 9B, the example of the case number 14 takes the maximum value, and the value is about 40 MPa. Since this value is smaller than 0.5 times the reference value (100 MPa) of the design rule R, it becomes a safety pattern. Here, although it is assumed that it is smaller than 0.5 times, it is convenient if the system user can change the setting.
　次に、ステップＳ１４０において、最大値が設計ルールＲの基準値より大きいか確認する。最大値が設計ルールＲの基準値より大きい場合には、危険パターンとなる。例えば、図９Ｃに示した例では、事例番号１３の例が最大値をとり、その値は１２０ＭＰａ程度である。この値は、設計ルールＲの基準値（１００ＭＰａ）よりも大きいので危険パターンとなる。 Next, in step S140, it is confirmed whether the maximum value is larger than the reference value of the design rule R. When the maximum value is larger than the reference value of the design rule R, it becomes a dangerous pattern. For example, in the example shown in FIG. 9C, the example of the case number 13 takes the maximum value, and the value is about 120 MPa. Since this value is larger than the reference value (100 MPa) of the design rule R, it becomes a dangerous pattern.
　次に、ステップＳ１４５において、安全パターンおよび危険パターンに該当する設計ルールに対して、設計ルール変更案を出力する。またこの際、該設計ルールのフラグをチェック済みに変更する。 Next, in step S145, a design rule change proposal is output for the design rule corresponding to the safety pattern and the danger pattern. At this time, the design rule flag is changed to checked.
　図１１は、設計ルール変更案の出力例を示している。基準値を変更する候補となる設計ルール番号、安全パターンもしくは危険パターン、代表値を出力する。 FIG. 11 shows an output example of the design rule change proposal. The design rule number, safety pattern or danger pattern, and representative value that are candidates for changing the reference value are output.
　ステップＳ１２０において、対象設計ルールの値の範囲が規定値以上の場合、ステップＳ１５０において、値の範囲が規定値以上でなければならないルールについては、モデル群ＭＳにおけるチェック対象パラメータの最小値を取得する。例えば、設計ルールのパラメータが、重量の場合には、モデル群ＭＳに帰属するモデルの重量を全て検索し、最小の重量を最小値とする。 If the value range of the target design rule is equal to or greater than the specified value in step S120, the minimum value of the check target parameter in the model group MS is acquired for the rule whose value range must be equal to or greater than the specified value in step S150. . For example, when the design rule parameter is weight, all the weights of the models belonging to the model group MS are searched, and the minimum weight is set as the minimum value.
　次に、ステップＳ１５５において、求めた最小値を代表値とする。 Next, in step S155, the obtained minimum value is set as a representative value.
　次に、ステップＳ１６０において、最小値が設計ルールＲの基準値の１．５倍より大きいか確認する。大きい場合には、安全パターンとなる。例えば、設計ルールＲの基準値として、安全係数が３以上のとき安全な設計であるとしている例の場合、安全係数の最小値が４．５となる例では、この値は、設計ルールＲの基準値（３）の１．５倍よりも大きいので安全パターンとなる。なおここでは、１．５倍より大きいとしたが、システム使用者が設定を変更できるようにしておくと、使い勝手がよい。 Next, in step S160, it is confirmed whether the minimum value is larger than 1.5 times the reference value of the design rule R. If it is larger, it becomes a safety pattern. For example, in the case of an example in which the design is safe when the safety factor is 3 or more as the reference value of the design rule R, in the example where the minimum value of the safety factor is 4.5, this value is the value of the design rule R. Since it is larger than 1.5 times the reference value (3), it becomes a safety pattern. Here, it is assumed that it is larger than 1.5 times, but it is convenient if the system user can change the setting.
　次に、ステップＳ１６５において、最小値が設計ルールＲの基準値より小さいか確認する。最小値が設計ルールＲの基準値より小さい場合には、危険パターンとなる。例えば、設計ルールＲの基準値として、安全係数が３以上のとき安全な設計であるとしている例の場合、安全係数の最小値が２となる例では、この値は、設計ルールＲの基準値（３）よりも小さいので危険パターンとなる。 Next, in step S165, it is confirmed whether the minimum value is smaller than the reference value of the design rule R. When the minimum value is smaller than the reference value of the design rule R, it becomes a dangerous pattern. For example, in the case of an example in which the design is safe when the safety factor is 3 or more as the reference value of the design rule R, in the example where the minimum value of the safety factor is 2, this value is the reference value of the design rule R Since it is smaller than (3), it becomes a dangerous pattern.
　次に、図１２～図１４を用いて、本実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール変更案提示部９の作用について説明する。　
　図１２は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール変更案提示部の作用の説明図である。図１３は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール変更案提示部により変更された設計ルールデータベースの登録内容の説明図である。図１４は、本発明の一実施形態による設計ルール更新支援装置に用いる設計ルール変更案提示部の作用の説明図である。 Next, the operation of the design rule change proposal presenting unit 9 used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIGS.
FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram of the operation of the design rule change proposal presenting unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 13 is an explanatory diagram of the registered contents of the design rule database changed by the design rule change proposal presenting unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 14 is an explanatory diagram of the operation of the design rule change proposal presenting unit used in the design rule update support apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention.
　設計ルール変更案提示部９は、設計ルール妥当性評価部８が出力した設計ルール変更案を、システム使用者に提示する。図１２は、設計ルール変更案提示部の画面出力例を示している。 The design rule change proposal presenting section 9 presents the design rule change proposal output by the design rule validity evaluation section 8 to the system user. FIG. 12 shows a screen output example of the design rule change proposal presenting unit.
　例えば、変更パターンは、安全パターンか危険パターンかを合わせて表示するとどのような変更が行われるのかシステム使用者が容易に判断できる。なおここで、設計ルール横にある「変更受入」ボタン１１０１を選択に伴い、設計ルール変更提示部は設計ルールデータベースの設計ルールの判定値を更新する。 For example, the system user can easily determine what kind of change will be performed if the change pattern is displayed together with the safety pattern or the danger pattern. Here, in accordance with the selection of the “change acceptance” button 1101 next to the design rule, the design rule change presentation unit updates the determination value of the design rule in the design rule database.
　図１３は、設計ルール番号３に関して「変更受入」を実施した後の設計ルールデータベース４の登録内容を示している。すなわち、図４に示した設計ルールと比べて、ルール番号３の値の範囲が１００以下から４６以下に変更されているのがわかる。 FIG. 13 shows the registered contents of the design rule database 4 after “acceptance of change” with respect to the design rule number 3. That is, it can be seen that the range of the value of rule number 3 is changed from 100 or less to 46 or less compared to the design rule shown in FIG.
　また危険パターンの場合、「根拠提示」ボタン１１０２を選択すると、図１４のように該当する設計ルールに関して、設計ルール変更根拠データベースに登録された理由とモデルが根拠として表示される。システム使用者は、理由を見て重量に関するルールの代わりに、重量物を支持する部品の強度について設計ルールを追加することに気づき、検討を開始できる。 In the case of a dangerous pattern, when the “presentation” button 1102 is selected, the reason and model registered in the design rule change rationale database are displayed as the basis for the corresponding design rule as shown in FIG. The system user can see the reason and notice that he adds a design rule for the strength of the part that supports the heavy object instead of the rule regarding the weight, and can start the examination.
　このように、設計ルールチェックの結果に基づき、設計ルールの妥当性を評価し、妥当性の低い設計ルールの変更案や、設計ルール変更に関連する情報をタイムリーに提示できるので、設計ルールを適切な状態で保つことができ、この妥当性の高い設計ルールを用いて、より適切な設計を行うことができる。 In this way, the validity of the design rule can be evaluated based on the result of the design rule check, and the design rule change can be presented in a timely manner with proposals for changing the design rule with low validity and information related to the design rule change. An appropriate state can be maintained, and a more appropriate design can be performed using the design rule with high validity.
　以上説明したように、本実施形態によれば、設計ルールチェックシステムや設計エキスパートシステムなどで用いる設計ルールの妥当性を検討し、妥当性が低いと判断された場合に変更案をタイムリーに配信可能であり、設計ルールを適切な状態で保つことができ、より適切な設計を行うことができる。
As described above, according to the present embodiment, the validity of the design rule used in the design rule check system, the design expert system, etc. is examined, and if it is judged that the validity is low, the proposed change is distributed in a timely manner. It is possible, the design rules can be kept in an appropriate state, and a more appropriate design can be performed.
１００…設計ルール更新支援装置
１…入出力装置
２…モデル入力部
３…モデルパラメータデータベース
４…設計ルールデータベース
５…設計ルールチェック部
６…チェック結果表示部
７…設計ルール変更根拠データベース
８…設計ルール妥当性評価部
９…設計ルール変更案提示部 DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 100 ... Design rule update assistance apparatus 1 ... Input / output device 2 ... Model input part 3 ... Model parameter database 4 ... Design rule database 5 ... Design rule check part 6 ... Check result display part 7 ... Design rule change basis database 8 ... Design rule Validity evaluation unit 9 ... Design rule change proposal presentation unit

Claims (3)

  1. 　入出力装置を通じて形状モデルや解析結果などのモデル情報を入力するモデル入力手段と、
    　該モデル入力手段により入力された形状モデルが登録されるモデルパラメータデータベースと、
    　設計ルールの適用対象範囲および形状モデルもしくは解析結果のパラメータとそのとりうる範囲を対応づけて、前記設計ルールが登録される設計ルールデータベースと、
    　前記モデルパラメータデータベースに登録された形状モデルや解析結果のパラメータと、前記計ルールデータベースに登録された設計ルールの照合を行い、チェック結果を出力する設計ルールチェック手段と、
    　該設計ルールチェック手段によるチェック結果を表示するチェック結果表示手段と、
    　前記モデルパラメータデータベースに登録された解析結果のパラメータと、前記設計ルールデータベースに登録された設計ルールとから、前記設計ルールの妥当性を判断し、変更が必要な設計ルールについて変更案を生成する設計ルール妥当性評価手段と、
    　該設計ルール妥当性評価手段により生成された設計ルールの変更案を提示する設計ルール変更案提示手段を備えることを特徴とする設計ルール更新支援装置。     Model input means for inputting model information such as shape models and analysis results through input / output devices;
    A model parameter database in which the shape model input by the model input means is registered;
    A design rule database in which the design rules are registered by associating design rule application target ranges and shape models or analysis result parameters with possible ranges;
    A design rule check means for collating the shape model registered in the model parameter database and the analysis result parameter with the design rule registered in the meter rule database and outputting a check result;
    Check result display means for displaying a check result by the design rule check means;
    Design that determines the validity of the design rule from the analysis result parameter registered in the model parameter database and the design rule registered in the design rule database, and generates a change plan for the design rule that needs to be changed Rule validity evaluation means,
    A design rule update support apparatus comprising design rule change proposal presenting means for presenting a design rule change proposal generated by the design rule validity evaluation means.
  2. 　請求項１記載の設計ルール更新支援装置において、
    　前記設計ルール妥当性評価手段は、妥当性の検討として、設計ルールの判定基準と、モデルパラメータデータベースに登録されたモデル群のパラメータを比較することを特徴とする設計ルール更新支援装置。     In the design rule update support device according to claim 1,
    The design rule relevance evaluation unit compares the design rule determination criteria with the parameters of the model group registered in the model parameter database as a validity study.
  3. 　請求項１記載の設計ルール更新支援装置において、
    　前記チェック結果表示手段は、チェック結果を表示し、設計ルールを満足しない部位に関しては、変更の要否を問い合わせし、変更不要の場合にはその理由の入力を促し、
    　前記変更不要の場合の理由を設計ルールに関連付けて登録される設計ルール変更根拠データベースを備え、
    　前記設計ルール変更案提示部は、設計ルールの変更案に合わせて、前記設計ルール変更根拠データベースに登録された関連する変更不要の場合の理由を提示することを特徴とする設計ルール更新支援装置。     In the design rule update support device according to claim 1,
    The check result display means displays a check result, and inquires whether or not the change is necessary for a part that does not satisfy the design rule.
    A design rule change rationale database that is registered in association with the design rule the reason for not requiring the change,
    The design rule change proposal presenting section presents a reason for a case in which no related change is registered in the design rule change rationale database in accordance with a design rule change proposal.
PCT/JP2010/068715 2010-10-22 2010-10-22 Design rule update supporting device WO2012053103A1 (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/JP2010/068715 WO2012053103A1 (en) 2010-10-22 2010-10-22 Design rule update supporting device

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/JP2010/068715 WO2012053103A1 (en) 2010-10-22 2010-10-22 Design rule update supporting device

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2012053103A1 true WO2012053103A1 (en) 2012-04-26

Family

ID=45974837

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/JP2010/068715 WO2012053103A1 (en) 2010-10-22 2010-10-22 Design rule update supporting device

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2012053103A1 (en)

Cited By (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN112313655A (en) * 2018-10-31 2021-02-02 艾司科软件有限公司 System and method for previewing computer-aided design files corresponding to tools used to process sheet media
CN119129274A (en) * 2024-09-19 2024-12-13 上海金曲信息技术有限公司 A method for automatically replacing equipment

Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JPH0512354A (en) * 1991-07-03 1993-01-22 Hitachi Ltd Collaborative design management method and device, and collaborative design management network system
JPH08241338A (en) * 1995-03-02 1996-09-17 Toyota Motor Corp Forging rough material design equipment
JP2003296383A (en) * 2002-04-05 2003-10-17 Denso Corp Three-dimensional modeling system
JP2005309723A (en) * 2004-04-21 2005-11-04 Nsk Ltd Automatic design system, automatic design method, and automatic design program
JP2008176423A (en) * 2007-01-16 2008-07-31 Canon Inc Design support apparatus and design support method

Patent Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JPH0512354A (en) * 1991-07-03 1993-01-22 Hitachi Ltd Collaborative design management method and device, and collaborative design management network system
JPH08241338A (en) * 1995-03-02 1996-09-17 Toyota Motor Corp Forging rough material design equipment
JP2003296383A (en) * 2002-04-05 2003-10-17 Denso Corp Three-dimensional modeling system
JP2005309723A (en) * 2004-04-21 2005-11-04 Nsk Ltd Automatic design system, automatic design method, and automatic design program
JP2008176423A (en) * 2007-01-16 2008-07-31 Canon Inc Design support apparatus and design support method

Cited By (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN112313655A (en) * 2018-10-31 2021-02-02 艾司科软件有限公司 System and method for previewing computer-aided design files corresponding to tools used to process sheet media
US11982989B2 (en) * 2018-10-31 2024-05-14 Esko Software Bv System and method for preflighting a computer aided design file corresponding to a tool for processing sheet media
CN119129274A (en) * 2024-09-19 2024-12-13 上海金曲信息技术有限公司 A method for automatically replacing equipment

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US20190095839A1 (en) Design support device and design support method
JP3824153B2 (en) Electronic parts list system
JP6415493B2 (en) Design support method, server, and design support system
US20100280864A1 (en) Quality function development support method and storage medium
JP7509120B2 (en) Data linkage method and data linkage system
CN112654943B (en) Manufacturing system design auxiliary device
US20150142149A1 (en) Method and computer-based tool for composite-structure fabrication design
WO2012053103A1 (en) Design rule update supporting device
US20140136155A1 (en) Analyzing hardware designs based on component re-use
KR950007926B1 (en) How to evaluate the usability of work
US20200233989A1 (en) Method for measuring wrinkles with reference to target surface
US9792391B2 (en) Refining of material definitions for designed parts
JP2018025950A (en) Automatic estimation method, server and automatic estimation system
JP6641456B2 (en) Computer system and data classification method
JP5033775B2 (en) Design rule generation device, design rule generation program
JP2009301410A (en) Design support system and computer program
JP6081305B2 (en) Field work support system and method
JP2011227650A (en) Design support device and design support method
JP2007183700A (en) Shape model creation device
US9887903B2 (en) Comparison between different descriptions of a web service
JP6783280B2 (en) Automatic quotation method and computer
JP4747475B2 (en) Computer program for planning new vehicles
JP2006085329A (en) Product specification management device
JP2010181937A (en) Design support system and design support method
JP6033075B2 (en) Product search apparatus and product search method program

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 10858657

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 10858657

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: JP