JP3075298B2 - Collaborative design support method and system - Google Patents

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0001]

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates to a design coordination system for design items for designing from a plurality of viewpoints such as desirable reliability, productivity and operability in order to determine product specifications. Perform stand-alone evaluations for multiple design items,
The present invention relates to a cooperative design support method and system for supporting cooperative work between departments that design each design item and obtaining an optimal design value when viewed comprehensively.

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art Conventionally, there have been many publications on analysis methods or analysis systems for evaluating and determining product design specifications. As a typical example, as a system for performing flow analysis, cooling analysis, and the like for mold design, mold technology, Vol. 2, No. 11, Chapter 2, pages 16 to 19 (published by Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun) (October 20, 1987)) there is an analysis / evaluation technique as discussed. Thus, when looking at a typical example of the prior art, the above prior art is based on a flow analysis,
Heat transfer analysis, structural analysis, etc. are performed sequentially, and the design specifications are confirmed based on individual analysis results. In this case, the mold is a jig for molding a product, and therefore, its specifications are originally intended for analysis of product specifications performed in another design department and analysis of mold specifications performed in the mold design department. Although these prior arts need to be matched, these prior arts were not systems that merged analyzes from different perspectives across multiple departments or made comprehensive judgments.

[0003]

In the above prior art, the following points are not considered, and the design specification of a product designed over a plurality of design items is determined by evaluation from a plurality of different viewpoints. I couldn't do that. (1) A specific analysis is performed with high accuracy, and the results are only displayed graphically, so that the comprehensive evaluation cannot be performed based on the relationship between the analysis results corresponding to a plurality of evaluation items. (2) At the start of design in a department that is responsible for the design of a certain design item, design parameters (input data) are not prepared at the pre-design stage, and the analysis is not performed for the inconsistency of design progress between departments, such as in the other departments. Could not be performed. Therefore, in the related art, evaluation (analysis) cannot be performed unless a related design proceeds until all design parameters required for analysis are determined, which causes a delay in design. Or analysis results using design parameters set or imagined under favorable conditions for the preceding design item,
The evaluation is performed in conjunction with another analysis result using design parameters set by the design department that follows, and as a result, the evaluation data usually lacks consistency. (3) If there is an analysis program using only the design parameters determined by the preceding design department, optimization is performed only on the design parameters, so that the design margin of the design parameters of the subsequent design department is reduced. It was lost or the evaluation of subsequent design items was insufficient or exceeded desirable limits.

An object of the present invention is to solve the above-mentioned drawbacks of the prior art, and it is not always optimal in view of individual design items.
For the product, perform an evaluation including a comprehensive evaluation and a manufacturing cost prediction that are optimal for the entire design items related to it, and perform analysis (evaluation of design specification proposals and candidate proposals) and evaluation to derive design specifications. Another object of the present invention is to provide a collaborative design support method capable of performing such analysis and evaluation at an early stage regardless of the progress of the design. Another object of the present invention is to provide a collaborative design support system in which, when executing an analysis program for evaluation on a design item preceding design, if there are undetermined input parameters, the design item is more appropriate than the related design department or the same object. Is to be able to procure appropriate values. further,
An object of the present invention is to provide the above-described cooperative design support apparatus even when the cooperative design support method is executed via a plurality of workstations, and the design departments for the respective design items are dispersed at remote locations.

[0005]

In order to achieve the above object, the present invention provides a system for determining a design specification of a product whose design is to be advanced over a plurality of design items. Enter design parameters that define candidates, centrally manage the parameters for each of the plurality of design items, set the evaluation requirement values for evaluating the product specification candidates based on this, and , Each evaluation requirement is comprehensively evaluated on the basis of the value of, and the product specification candidate is determined. Furthermore, it is possible to determine whether or not the design parameters required for executing the analysis program have been set, and if there is an unset design parameter as a result of the determination, it is possible to temporarily determine the unset design parameter. Also, regarding the design parameters required for the above execution, if there are those that require matching of specifications among the above-mentioned multiple design items or those that require mutual trade-off, A plurality of design parameters are generated, whereby a change in an analysis result with respect to a change in the design parameters is obtained, and the design parameters can be determined.

[0006] As a device configuration of a system for executing these operations, a data input unit for inputting design parameters for defining product specification candidates for each of the design items, and a design for centrally managing the parameters for each of the plurality of design items. A parameter management unit, an analysis execution unit that sets evaluation requirement values for evaluating the product specification candidates together with the management unit, and a comprehensive evaluation of trade-offs between each evaluation requirement based on a plurality of evaluation requirement values. It has a comprehensive evaluation unit such as a trade-off evaluation unit that determines the candidate for the product specification, and an output unit such as a display that outputs these determined results. Further, a LAN configuration, an OA system using a communication network system, and a remote communication system configuration are also possible, and the following configurations are possible. A workstation connected via communication control means corresponding to each design item, a signal transmission path connecting the workstations, and at least one central workstation connected to the signal transmission path; The workstation for each of the design items has at least the data input unit, the design parameter management unit, and the analysis execution unit, and the central workstation has at least the comprehensive evaluation unit.

[0007]

In order to achieve the above object, the present invention has the following functions. The design parameter management unit manages all the design parameters related to each design item of the product in a unified manner, setting, changing, confirming the presence or absence, and properties (the name of the department that has the authority to decide, No need to decide)
Figure out. The analysis program registration unit stores an analysis program group for each evaluation item together with input data information necessary for its execution, calls any analysis program as needed, and creates an executable environment. The analysis execution unit mainly has the following three functions. Design parameter provisional request function If the design parameters required for analysis execution have not been set, the department or object name that has the authority to determine the design parameters is inquired to the above-mentioned design parameter management unit, and the values of the relevant design parameters are input. Until it is done. Iterative calculation function When it is necessary to determine the trade-off relationship among the necessary design parameters, multiple input data for the case where the value of the corresponding design parameter is changed in multiple ways is generated, and input is performed as many times as the generated data. Run the analysis program repeatedly while changing data. Automatic calculation function When a design parameter required for analysis execution is set or changed, a related analysis program is found from the relationship between the design parameter name and the analysis program name and automatically executed.

[0008] The trade-off evaluation unit obtains, by iterative calculation, design parameter values that maximize the internally held evaluation formula from the analysis results in a trade-off relationship for each evaluation item, and calculates the design parameter values between the design items or the evaluation items. Determine the optimal values of the design parameters that require matching between items. The result display unit displays a graph with respect to the change in the design parameter of the evaluation value obtained by the trade-off evaluation unit, and also displays the optimal value of the design parameter. With the various functions described above, the evaluation of a specification proposal (specification candidate) in consideration of derivation of a design specification that is not necessarily optimal for each design department but is optimal for the entire design department involved is an important factor in the design progress. Regardless, it can be performed quickly, and finally an optimal design solution can be obtained. The design parameter management unit further has a temporary design parameter function, and determines the most appropriate value based on past performance data and the like, using the read design parameter group as a key.
The design parameter management unit further has a manufacturing cost prediction function as needed, and when the trade-off evaluation between the design parameters is performed in the trade-off evaluation unit between the departments and the evaluation items, the cost is clearly evaluated. A reference can be given, and an optimum design value can be easily obtained.

Next, a bus, a bus controller, a central processing unit, a disk controller,
A LAN configuration in which a plurality of workstations each including a main storage device, a display device, a keyboard, and a disk, and further including a communication control device and a modem are connected via each modem, is possible. In this case, each of the workstations performs the same operation corresponding to each of the above-described design departments or objects, and some of the workstations are at the center thereof. At the workstation corresponding to each design department, an analysis program corresponding to the received design parameters is started. If the design parameters required for the execution of the analysis are not available, a request for provisionally determining the design parameters is made to the workstation of the department or object having the authority to determine the design parameters. Upon receiving this, the central work station is used by the trade-off evaluation unit in each of the design departments or objects. Alternatively, a trade-off relationship between the evaluation items is evaluated, and the evaluation result is sent to a workstation such as a design department concerned. In response to this, at the workstation of each design department, the sent evaluation result is displayed on the display device by the result display unit on the main memory, and the result is confirmed.

[0010]

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS FIG.
FIG. 2 and FIG. 1 are diagrams respectively showing an example of an apparatus configuration and an example of a functional configuration such as software of the cooperative design support system of the present invention. 2, in addition to the central processing unit 13, a disk device 18 controlled by a disk control device 17 is connected to the multibus 11 under the control of the bus control device 12. Further, a main storage device 14, a display device 16 and a keyboard 15 are accommodated. Thus, the data input from the keyboard 15 is transmitted to the central processing unit 13.
At the same time, the data is stored in the main storage device 14 and displayed on the display device 16 or the data on the main storage device 14 is stored in the disk device 17 via the multi-bus 11 and the disk control device 17 by the central processing unit 13. Runado, Professor receive transfer of data is performed.

As shown in FIG. 1, the functional configuration of the present invention is a data input unit (function) 21, a design parameter management unit (function) 22, an analysis program registration unit (function) 23, and an analysis execution unit (function). 24, a design parameter provisional determination request section (function) 25, an analysis result storage section (function) 26, a trade-off evaluation section (function) 27, a result display section (function) 28, and the like. More specifically, the data input unit 21 includes a design parameter corresponding to a partial specification proposal (or a specification candidate) of a product such as an outer shape and a material input for each design department, and a design parameter (for each design department). Or, input the evaluation item name corresponding to the design content of each design item). The design parameter management unit 22 unitarily manages all design parameters related to the product input from the data input unit 21 for each design department, and sets, changes, confirms the presence or absence, and sets the properties (the department having the decision authority). (E.g., names of objects and blocks having various functions necessary for designing, names of multiple evaluations, etc.). The present invention provides a system for supporting collaborative design between design departments in a production factory, and further enables cooperative operation between objects of an expert system and cooperation between other functional blocks. . Next, the analysis program registration unit 23 stores an analysis program group for each evaluation item corresponding to the design content of each design department together with input data (design parameter name) information necessary for its execution, and as necessary. Call the program and create an executable environment.

The analysis executing section 24 has the following three functions. (A) Design parameter provisional request function: An analysis program corresponding to the evaluation item input by the data input means is called via the analysis program registration unit 23, and the design parameters set in the design parameter management unit 22 are set. If the required design parameters are not set when executing as an input value, the design parameter management unit is queried for the name of the department that has the authority to determine the design parameters and the name of the block that has the corresponding function. Execution is suspended until the value of the design parameter is input from the data input unit 21 of the design department or block. (B) Iterative calculation function: When the analysis program is to be executed, it is necessary to make a trade-off determination in the design parameter management unit 22 among necessary design parameters (for example, a department or a block having a decision authority). There are multiple,
Alternatively, it is necessary to match with the evaluation result of another analysis program), and if there is a plurality of input data for the case where the value of the corresponding design parameter is changed plural times, the input data is generated. The analysis program is repeatedly executed while changing the input data by the number of times. (C) Automatic calculation function ... In the case of the above (A), when a design parameter that has not been set by another department or block is set as a corresponding design parameter, or a design parameter in the design parameter management unit Is changed, a related analysis program is found from the relationship between the design parameter name and the analysis program name defined in the analysis program registration unit, and is automatically executed.

The analysis result storage unit 26 stores analysis results corresponding to design parameter changes for each evaluation item obtained by the analysis execution unit 24, and manages them so that they can be arbitrarily taken out in comprehensive evaluation. The trade-off evaluation unit 27 repeatedly calculates a design parameter value that maximizes an internally held evaluation formula from analysis results having a trade-off relationship for each evaluation item managed by the analysis result storage unit. The optimal values of the design parameters that need to be matched between design departments, blocks, or evaluation items are obtained. The result display unit 28 displays a graph for the change in the design parameter of the evaluation value obtained by the trade-off evaluation unit 27, and at the same time, displays the optimal value of the design parameter. With the above-described operations of the data input unit 21, the design parameter management unit 22, the analysis program registration unit 23, the analysis execution unit 24, the analysis result storage unit 26, the trade-off evaluation unit 27, and the result display unit 28, the design department and the block Although it is not necessarily optimal when viewed separately, it is possible to quickly evaluate specification proposals (or specification candidates) in consideration of derivation of design specifications that are optimal for the relevant design departments and blocks as a whole, regardless of the design progress. Finally, an optimal design solution can be obtained.

The design parameter management section 22 further has a design parameter provisional function. This is because the design parameter provision request function of the analysis execution unit 24 described above makes a provisional decision request of the design parameter value necessary for starting the analysis program when the relevant design department or block makes a request. Make a tentative decision like
This function sets a value in the design parameter management unit. In the operation, first, a design parameter group relating to a design object including a design parameter for which a provisional request is made is read from the design parameter management unit. Next, from the past performance data registered in advance by the design parameter temporary function, the design parameter database 18 is searched for the most suitable value using the read design parameter group as a key. The value extracted by the search is sent to the design parameter management block by the temporary function. As a search technique in this case, a well-known technique applied and implemented for various purposes today can be used. In addition, the analysis execution block further has a manufacturing cost prediction function, and calculates a cost prediction function by using design parameters in the design parameter management unit 22 as input, thereby predicting a manufacturing cost, and storing the result as an analysis result storage. Hand over to section 26. Thus, in the subsequent trade-off evaluation unit 27, in the evaluation of the trade-off relationship between departments and evaluation items, a clear evaluation criterion called cost can be given, and the optimum design value can be easily obtained.

Next, a specific example of the apparatus configuration of the present invention will be described with reference to the system shown in FIG. The figure shows a multibus 1
1, bus control device 12, central processing unit 13, disk control device 17, main storage device 14, display device 12,
2 shows a workstation including a keyboard 15 and a disk 18. The first storage on the main storage device 14
The functions of the cooperative design support system shown in the figure (data input unit, design parameter management unit, analysis program registration unit, analysis execution unit, analysis result storage unit, trade-off evaluation unit, result display unit) are stored. 18 includes design parameters managed by the design parameter management unit 22;
Analysis result data managed by the analysis result storage unit 26 and an analysis program managed by the analysis program registration unit 23 are stored, and the central processing unit operates each unit on the main storage device. This is to perform collaborative design.

Further, as a network system in which a plurality of the workstations shown in FIG. 2 are connected, a bus, a bus control unit, a central processing unit, a disk control unit, a main storage unit, a display unit, a keyboard, a disk, A LAN configuration in which a plurality of workstations each including a communication control device and a modem are connected via the modem is possible. FIG. 3 shows the configuration. The workstations 1 to 6 are connected to WSs 1 to 6 (301 to 30).
As shown in 6), in this example, there are six workstations described above, and the LAN network 310 shows a loop- shaped line, but the same configuration may be applied to the general network. In the case of the distributed type, each of the WS1 to WS6 in FIG. 3 may have the same configuration, but in the case of the centralized type, there is at least a central workstation. Among the functions of the cooperative design support method shown in FIG. 1, the design parameter management unit 22, the analysis program registration 23, the analysis result storage unit 26, the trade-off evaluation unit 27
Storing, storage design parameters managed by the design parameter managing unit in the disk device, and the analysis result data managed by the analysis result storage unit 26, an analysis program that is managed by the analysis program registration section 26 Keep it. In addition, the data input unit 21, the analysis result display unit 28, and the temporary design parameter function of the functional configuration of the cooperative design support system shown in FIG. The past performance parameters managed by the design parameter temporary storage function are stored and stored in the disk device.

The design parameters corresponding to the design plan input from the data input unit of each design department workstation are sent to the design parameter management unit on the central workstation on the network via the modem. The workstation activates an analysis program corresponding to the received design parameters. If the design parameters required for the execution of the analysis are not available, a request for provisional determination of the design parameters is made to the department or the workstation of the object having the authority to determine the design parameters via the communication control device or the modem. Upon receiving the request via the modem, the department workstation or the like starts the design parameter temporary section on its main memory, extracts the design parameter value from the disk device, and communicates with the central controller via the communication control device and the modem. The parameter value is set in the disk device managed by the design parameter management unit of the workstation. The analysis result data group stored in the disk device of the central workstation is evaluated by a trade-off evaluation unit on its main memory for a trade-off relationship between departments, blocks, or evaluation items. Via a modem to a workstation such as an associated design department. In these design departments and workstations for each object, the sent evaluation results are displayed on a display device by a result display unit on the main memory, and the results are confirmed. When the design parameters once set or temporarily changed are to be changed, the values are again input from the data input unit, and the changed values are changed to the design parameter management unit on the central workstation via the communication control device and the modem. Set. In this way, a cooperative design support system can be realized even in a design department or the like distributed and arranged in a remote place.

An example in which the cooperative design support system according to the present invention is applied to the design of a semiconductor plastic package will be described. FIG. 4 is an explanatory view illustrating a normal LSI package mold. Product 421 is LSI chip 4
01 is cut off from a frame 420 in which a resin mold is applied to each chip with respect to a multiple lead frame 403 in which all lines are bonded by 402. 40
Reference numerals 9 and 405 denote upper and lower dies for performing the resin molding. A cavity 404 is formed in the lower mold 405 for simultaneous molding with the lead frame, and a runner groove 40 for pouring the molten resin into the cavity 404.
6 and the gate 407 of each cavity are carved. A pot 410 for storing the resin and a plunger 413 for pushing the pot 410 are fitted into the upper mold 409. Heaters 408 for melting the resin are embedded in the upper and lower molds.

FIG. 5 is an enlarged perspective view of a partial cross section showing in more detail the manner in which the above chips are molded. The specifications of the semiconductor plastic package are such that a chip 52 having a circuit formed on a semiconductor element, a frame portion 53 for fixing the chip in the package and making an electrical connection to the outside world, and a chip / frame can be accommodated in the outer dimensions of the package. (PKG) structure 51, which is determined by each design process of a mold 54 for pouring, sealing, and molding a molten resin into a cavity having an external shape of the package. The circuit (layout) design department, the frame design department, the structural design department, and the mold design department respectively perform the respective tasks. The circuit design department performs the design while evaluating the wiring length and the like on the chip, taking into account the wiring efficiency of the elements. In the frame design department, the optimal frame shape is set so that the tension of the gold wire stretched between the bonding pads (terminals) on the chip and the frame to make electrical connection between the chip and the outside of the package is reasonable. And design. The Structural Design Department evaluates the thermal applied force of a package composed of members with different coefficients of thermal expansion, such as metal, silicon, and resin, against the thermal stress applied to the package, and designs a structurally strong member layout. . In the mold design department, the resin flowing into the cavity
In order to prevent the gold wire from being bent, evaluate the viscosity and flow velocity of the inflow resin, and evaluate the flow state of the resin for the insert (chip frame) that divides the cavity up and down. Design of the mold specifications. Here, for example, the following trade-off relationship exists between design parameters handled by each design department. The larger the distance from the lower surface of the package to the lower surface of the tab (the frame portion where the chip is placed) (hereinafter referred to as the dimension under the tab), the smaller the thermal stress, but the more the resin flow during molding, Balance is more likely to occur. (Flow imbalance causes defects (voids) where air remains in the package). When the layout pattern of the bonding pads on the chip is set so as to optimize the wiring efficiency in the chip, the distance from the bonding position on the frame side becomes longer, and the gold wire is easily bent during molding.

Hereinafter, this will be described in detail with reference to the drawings. FIG. 6 and FIG. 7 are diagrams for explaining the above trade-off relationship. Both figures show how parameter values change (characteristics) when the tab-under dimension h is plotted on the horizontal axis. As shown in FIG. 6, the degree of resin flow imbalance shows a downward convex characteristic 650, and has an optimum lower tab dimension as a lower limit. On the other hand, since the thermal stress in FIG. 7 shows a characteristic 750 that monotonously decreases, the condition of the value of the dimension under the tab h that gives the minimum flow unbalance and the value of the value of h that minimizes the thermal stress match. do not do. The present invention makes it possible to make a trade-off in characteristics from a comprehensive viewpoint as a product without biasing such inconsistency between characteristics to one parameter. 8 and 9 are diagrams for explaining the above trade-off relationship. In both figures, the same horizontal axis is shown, but the horizontal axis in the figures shows the type of layout (layout pattern) of the pads 81 of the semiconductor chip 82 as shown, and is discrete. Two types are shown. Such layout patterns are conventionally known, for example, when pads are arranged along an edge, when they are arranged along a center line, when they are arranged along a longitudinal direction or a width direction, or the like. What is implemented may be sufficient. The plotted parameter values 85 and 95 correspond to the illustrated analysis programs f ₃ and f _{4, respectively.}
, And show monotonic characteristics opposite to each other. In such a case, as in the case of the above-mentioned trade-off relationship, an optimal trade-off between contradictory characteristics is possible as an overall desirable measure as a product.

Next, in order to carry out the evaluation in consideration of the above-mentioned trade-off relations, various design parameters determined by each design department at the time of evaluation are required. Therefore, the analysis cannot be performed in the preceding design department because the design parameters are not uniform. Next, a description will be given of a processing procedure of the present invention for processing such a problem without contradiction. Prior to the start of the system, the disk 18 managed by the design parameter management unit 22 stores data configured as shown in FIG. As shown, a design parameter name group 1012 for determining the semiconductor package specifications
Is a code 1011, a responsible department name 1012 having a right to determine parameters, information 1014 such as whether or not there is a trade-off relationship between evaluation items, and a corresponding evaluation program 101.
5 is defined in advance. The analysis program registration unit 23 shown in FIG.
In FIG. 8, an analysis program 1101 corresponding to each evaluation item is registered in the configuration shown in FIG. 11, as shown in FIG.
That is, the program name 1112 corresponding to the code names f _{1 to} f ₄ (1111) of the respective evaluation items and the design parameters 1113 required for executing the respective programs f _{1 to} f ₄ are registered in advance as shown in FIG. Have been.

(First Embodiment) Hereinafter, a first embodiment in which design (setting of parameter values) is performed between the above-described design departments, that is, in the order of the structural design department, will be described with reference to FIGS. 12 and 13. This will be described with reference to a flowchart. Hereinafter, a design system for coordinating between design departments in a production factory will be described in detail. However, these design departments can perform the same system using the object of the expert system and each block of the function block system as described above. However, as the first embodiment, a case where the conventional cooperation between design departments is supported will be described in detail.

First, the operator of the structural design department uses the keyboard 15 (FIG. 2) to input package external dimensions, tab-down dimensions, heating test data to be applied to the package, input data such as resin material constituting the package, and evaluation items. (Stress analysis), and data is taken into the system by the data input unit 21 (process 102). Next, the design parameter management unit 22 sets the design parameters input in the disk 18 (process 104). This is shown in FIG. 10, where the name of the department responsible for decision at 1013 in the figure is P1, P2, P3 of the code 1011 corresponding to the structural design.
P7, P12 and P13 are designed. next,
The system determines whether or not there is an instruction related to the evaluation (process 106), confirms the input stress analysis execution instruction, and instructs the analysis execution unit 24 to perform stress analysis as an evaluation item. . Analysis execution unit 24, the analysis program to register 23, the stress from the disk 18 analysis program f ₁ and design parameters name required for the execution P1, P3,
P4, P6, P7, P8, P9, P12 and P13 are the first
1 Read from FIG. 1113 and load it into the main storage device 14 via the disk control device 17, the multibus 11, and the central processing unit 13 (108). Here, the analyzing unit 24, the values of the design parameters registered in the disk 18, performs a comparison between the read parameter names in main memory, the design parameters of the program f ₁ run required above 1113 It is determined whether or not all the values are included (step 110). In this case, as apparent from FIG. 1113, the chip width P4 and the chip height P6 determined by the circuit design department, the frame thickness P8 determined by the frame design department, and the frame material P9 are not set. . Therefore, the system will provide the circuit design department with P4, P6,
A request for provisionally determining the values of P8 and P9, respectively, by the frame design department is transmitted to the design parameter provisional determination request unit 25.
(Processing 112).

In the circuit design department and the frame design department which have received the tentative determination request, tentative values are set based on past data and values under consideration, and are input from the data input unit 21 using the keyboard 15. The input data is registered in the disk 18 by the design parameter management unit 22 (process 106). At this time, since the instruction regarding the evaluation item has not been input (process 106), the analysis execution unit 24 stores the parameter P in the analysis program registration unit 23.
All the analysis programs with the arguments 4, P6, P8, and P9 as arguments are loaded from the disk 18 into the main storage device 14 (process 114). Next, the analysis execution unit 24 compares the read parameter names necessary for executing each program with the design parameters already set in the disk 18 and finds f1 as an executable analysis program as a result (process 11).
0). Next, the analysis execution unit 24 confirms that there is a trade-off relationship between the evaluation items with respect to the dimension P7 under the tab from 1014 of the design parameters 1010 stored in the disk 18 (processing 116), and the value of P7 Is instructed to execute the analysis program f1 using a value obtained by changing several types (steps 118 to 124). The analysis result storage unit 26 stores the analysis result obtained by the analysis execution unit 24 in the main storage device 14,
The data is stored in the disk 18 via the central processing unit 13, the multibus 11, and the disk control device 17 (processing 12
0). If the above analysis f1 in which the tab bottom dimension P7 is variously changed is completed (process 124), the process proceeds to the next step. When the execution of the stress analysis program f1 is completed, the analysis program 11 loaded in the main storage device 14
01 is the parameter P4, P6, as shown in FIG.
F2, f3, and f4 related to P8 and P9. Similar to the stress analysis program f1, the unset parameter provisional determination request (112) and the like are repeated to instruct the analysis execution unit 24 to execute the analysis. (Step 128).

Here, the above processing is repeated to
Assume that the analysis data shown in the figure is obtained. Among the execution results of the analysis programs f _{1 to} f ₄ obtained here, those relating to the analysis f ₁ and f ₂ related to the structural design department are received by the trade-off evaluation unit 27 and the analysis result storage unit It is taken out of the disk 18 via 26. next,
The process of evaluating the optimum condition based on the trade-off between the plurality of evaluation items will be described in detail with reference to FIG. FIG. 14 shows polynomialization 1311, standardization 1312, and optimization 131 of the characteristics with respect to the dimension under the tab shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 described above.
3 indicates that the processing of step 3 is performed sequentially. The trade-off evaluating unit 27 performs a polynomial approximation of the obtained analysis result using the least squares method. For example, polynomials for stress values on parameters

(Equation 1) However, the approximation is performed using X: the size under the tab, G (x): stress value, and αi: coefficient (process 130).

Next, the trade-off evaluation unit 27 standardizes the analysis result obtained by calculating the above polynomial into a range of 0 to 1 as a measure of the desirability of each parameter. It is set to 0 (process 132). As an example of the conversion method in this case, when the analysis result G (x) is the best when it is the maximum, the conversion is performed as shown in the following equation (2) (FIG. 1312).

(Equation 2) Here, f (x): conversion data x: design parameter Gmax: minimum value of G (x) GMIN: minimum value of G (x) When G (x) is minimum, conversion is performed as follows.

(Equation 3) Polynomialization and normalization are performed on all analysis results necessary for optimization (process 124). Next, the trade-off evaluation unit 27 calculates the evaluation formula F (x) from the plurality of standardized analysis results.

(Equation 4) However, fi (x): standardized analysis result ai: optimization is performed to obtain a design parameter (for example, a dimension under a tab) x that maximizes the weight of fi (x) (process 136).

Next, the result display unit 28 displays a graph for the design parameter change of the evaluation value obtained by the trade-off evaluation unit 27 for the structural design department and the mold design department, and at the same time, FIG. Xopt at 1315
The optimal value of the design parameter is displayed as in (13).
8). In this way, the structural design department preceding the other design departments uses the tentatively determined design parameter values sent from the other design departments to perform analysis corresponding to a variety of evaluation items. It is possible to examine the design specifications that can be agreed with the department from an early stage. First
FIG. 4 illustrates the above process. Where 131
The weight change of No. 4 and its display screen 1316 indicate that the coefficients a1, a2,... Of the above-mentioned evaluation formula (4) are to be reset as appropriate according to the product and its application conditions. Next, a case where input data such as a chip width, a chip length, a height, layout pattern data of a chip-side bonding pad, and intra-chip connection coordinates is input from the keyboard 15 by an operator of the circuit design department will be described. . In this case, of the values input here, the values different from the values provisionally determined in the previous structural design stage are the chip-side bonding pad layout pattern data P16 and the intra-chip connection coordinate data P16.
17 is assumed. Incorporated into the system by the data input unit 21 (process 102) data, the following design parameter managing unit 22, in the disk 18, if the determination responsibility department name 1013 in FIG. 10 is a circuit design That code 1011 is P4, P5, P6, P16,
This is set as P17 (process 104). Similarly if dealt with the case of the structural design department, then the system makes a determination of whether there is an instruction on evaluation (processing 10
6).

At this time, since the instruction regarding the evaluation item has not been input, the analysis execution unit 24 stores the parameters P16 and P17 whose current values have been rewritten in the analysis program registration unit 23 in the same manner as the processing in the case of the structural design department. Are loaded from the disk 18 into the main storage device 14 (process 114). Next, the analysis execution unit 24
Performs read comparison of (including those temporarily determined) parameters previously set in the parameter name and disk 18 necessary for the execution of each program, as a result, it found an executable program f ₂ and f ₄ (process 110 ). For chip-side bonding pad layout pattern P16 of the parameters used in f ₂ and f _4, Fig. 10 101
4, it is recognized that there is a trade-off relationship (process 116), so that f ₂ ,
instructs execution of f ₄ (process 118 to 124). Thereafter, the trade-off between the wiring length in the chip and the amount of deformation of the gold wire with respect to the change in the layout pattern of the bonding pads on the chip side is evaluated in the same manner as the processing in the above-mentioned structural design department (processing 128 to 136), and the circuit design is performed. An evaluation graph including the optimum value of the parameter is displayed for the department (step 128). The characteristics of each parameter with respect to the bonding pad layout pattern at this time are the same as those in FIGS. 8 and 9. In this way, even if the tentatively determined parameter values are changed in accordance with the progress of the design, the related analysis program is started immediately and the design proposal that requires a meeting with another design department is started. Can be examined. In the same way, for subsequent mold design and frame design, evaluation programs related to changes in provisional values are automatically executed, and optimization of design parameters that require examination from many viewpoints is performed. It is possible to quickly find the optimum specification in view of the entire parameters as a product regardless of the progress of the design.

(Second Embodiment) The first embodiment described above relates to a cooperative design support system between design departments in a production factory. Next, this system will be described in the case of an automated system by an expert system (second embodiment). Example) will be described in detail with reference to the drawings. FIG. 15 is a diagram of the expert system of the present invention which performs cooperative design support. As shown, the expert system has the object 151
1, 1512, and 1513, and objects communicate with each other by message passing as in the case of a normal expert system. Each object is composed of an analysis program Fi (1521), a design parameter group 1522 necessary for executing the Fi, and an object control unit Ci (1523) for completely controlling the operation of Fi. As shown, each object may share some primary design parameters. The analysis program Fi performs the same analysis as f1 in the _first embodiment, and the design parameter group 1522 is the same as the design parameter group Pi in the first embodiment. The specific processing flow is the same as in the case of FIG. 12 and FIG. 13, and the operation between the objects is the same as that of the first embodiment in which each design department is replaced with a corresponding object. Therefore, the decision-responsible department shown in FIG. 1013 can be replaced with an object having a function of performing a corresponding design.

As a result, all of the contents specifically shown as processing between design departments in the first embodiment can be handled as processing between objects in the second embodiment. Hereinafter, a case where a corresponding object performs an operation performed between design departments in the first embodiment with reference to FIGS. 16 to 19 will be described. As shown in the figure, the parameters already set are hatched in each figure, and the design parameters without the hatching are not set. FIG. 16 and FIG. 17 show an example in which the specification evaluation between a plurality of design items is performed synchronously. Each operation can be seen according to the flowcharts of FIGS. Now, it is assumed that a start request 1621 has been issued to the thermal stress analysis program F1. This corresponds to a state in which there is an instruction for an evaluation item in the determination of the process 106 in FIG. 12 and the analysis program is read in the process 108. As a result, the object 1511 performs the process 110 and checks whether or not the design parameters necessary for the execution of the F1 are complete. As shown in FIG. (1622). On the other hand, the values of the previously set parameters 1, 4, and 5 are read (1623). Next, in the case of the first embodiment, the design parameters
And 3 are read ( FIG. 17 ) (1624), which corresponds to steps 102 and 104. Here processing 11
Since the necessary design parameters at 0 are ready, F1 executes the subsequent processing. (1625).

FIGS. 18 and 19 show a case in which, when executing the above-described F1, processing corresponding to processing 118 to 124 when there is a trade-off relationship between evaluation items is performed.
If the value of the design parameter 5 is changed according to a trade-off relationship (1821), the analysis program F1 and F2 are related to this parameter.
Both 1 and F2 try to execute the analysis program (process 120). At this time, F1 can be immediately re-executed (1822 in FIG. 19) because the necessary design parameters are complete, but F2 issues a provisional decision request for the design parameter 6 because the design parameter 6 has not been set (1824). On the other hand, the set design parameters are read (1823). In this way, the analysis program F2 also reads the value of the temporarily determined design parameter 6 (1825) and performs the following steps. Hereinafter, the change value set by the trade-off relationship (processing 11
As in the case of the first embodiment, the processes 120 to 124 are executed as many times as necessary for 8), and the settings are made so that the optimal trade-off condition is satisfied. The second embodiment for realizing the cooperative design system of the present invention by the expert system has been described above. According to a second embodiment, the invention is semi-automatic or fully automatic,
It is possible to quickly execute the processing including the processing of the diagram and the like.

[0032]

As is clear from the above description, the following effects are expected according to the present invention. (1) It is possible to obtain analysis results while procuring design parameters necessary for performing individual evaluation and analysis corresponding to evaluation items existing for each design item. At the same time, optimization can be performed as a comprehensive evaluation between multiple evaluation items, so the set value is determined by this, so it is not necessarily optimal when looking at each design item, but it is optimal when looking at all the design items related to the product. The derivation of the design specification can be performed early regardless of the design progress. (2) In the above (1), it is possible to automatically procure design parameters necessary for executing the analysis program,
In addition, undetermined design parameters can be set and provisionally determined.
Since the evaluation can be performed, the optimal design specification can be quickly derived. (3) A collaborative design support device that realizes the above functions can be provided as an automated or semi-automated system by an expert system for object-oriented knowledge expression. (4) By coordinating devices determined for each of the above design items as workstations for each design department and connecting them via a network, even if the design departments are distributed to remote locations, the cooperative design support described in (1) can be provided. You can do it. Further, this will provide a new factory automation (FA) system or OA system. (5) When matching design specifications between design items and between evaluation items, it is possible to provide a consistent evaluation scale called a production cost prediction value corresponding to the design specifications, and to easily determine an optimum design value. it can.

[0033]

[Brief description of the drawings]

FIG. 1 is a software configuration diagram of a collaborative design support system according to the present invention.

FIG. 2 is a diagram showing a hardware configuration of the present invention.

FIG. 3 is a network configuration diagram of the present invention.

FIG. 4 is a conventional process drawing.

FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram of a semiconductor plastic package design used in the example of the present invention.

FIG. 6 is a graph display diagram showing an image of an analysis result obtained by the present invention.

FIG. 7 is a graph showing an image of an analysis result obtained by the present invention.

FIG. 8 is a graph display diagram showing an image of an analysis result obtained by the present invention.

FIG. 9 is a graph showing an image of an analysis result obtained by the present invention.

FIG. 10 is a configuration diagram showing a storage data configuration of a database of the present invention.

FIG. 11 is a configuration diagram showing a storage data configuration of a database of the present invention.

FIG. 12 is a flowchart showing a processing procedure of the present invention.

FIG. 13 is a flowchart showing a processing procedure of the present invention (split diagram of FIG. 12).

FIG. 14 is an explanatory diagram showing the concept of optimal evaluation according to the present invention.

FIG. 15 is an explanatory diagram of a second embodiment of the present invention using an expert system.

FIG. 16 is an explanatory diagram showing the operation of the second embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 17 is an explanatory diagram (split diagram of FIG. 16) showing the operation of the second embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 18 is an explanatory diagram showing the operation of the second example of the present invention.

FIG. 19 is an explanatory diagram (split diagram of FIG. 18) showing the operation of the second embodiment of the present invention.

[0034]

[Explanation of symbols]

 DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 11 Multi-bus 12 Bus control device 13 Central processing unit 14 Main storage device 15 Keyboard 16 Display device 17 Disk control device 18 Disk 21 Data input unit 22 Design parameter management unit 23 Analysis program registration unit 24 Analysis execution unit 25 Design parameter provisional decision request Unit 26 Analysis result storage unit 27 Trade-off evaluation unit 28 Result display unit 51 Package structure 52 Circuit 53 Frame 54 Mold die 1411 Object 1412 Object 1413 Object 1421 In-object analysis program processing unit 1423 Object control unit

──────────────────────────────────────────────────の Continuing from the front page (72) Inventor Junichi Saeki 292 Yoshidacho, Totsuka-ku, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa Prefecture Inside the Hitachi, Ltd.Production Technology Laboratory (72) Inventor Kunihiko Nishi 1450, Josuihoncho, Kodaira-shi, Tokyo Shares (56) References JP-A-3-147068 (JP, A) JP-A-3-157774 (JP, A) JP-A-1-169634 (JP, A) Industrial Research Committee Published by Osamu Amano “CAE for Injection Molding”, pp. 30-65 and 119-126 (58) Fields investigated (Int. Cl. ⁷ , DB name) G06F 17/50

Claims (9)

(57) [Claims] At least a processing device and a storage device are provided.
Information processing system to create multiple
A method of determining the design specifications of the product to be designed by the number design department, a step of accepting input of design parameters that define the candidate design specifications for each prior SL design item, before Symbol for a plurality of design items the double the previous Symbol design parameters
In the storage device as data corresponding to the number of design departments
Storing at least one of the plurality of design parameters;
Is determined by at least two or more design departments.
The design departments of the at least two or more design departments
Based on the evaluation characteristics from the viewpoint, the at least one
It said processing unit a total parameter as a candidate before Symbol design specifications
A step of evaluating by the design parameters the evaluation, yet another design parameters
From the viewpoint of comprehensive optimal design of the above products including
Collaborative design support method and evaluated, characterized in that a step of determining a candidate before Symbol design specifications Ri. 2. A system comprising at least a processing device and a storage device.
Information processing system to create multiple
Determine design specifications for products designed by several design departments
A design parameter for defining design specification candidates for each of the design items.
As data corresponding to meters with the multiple design departments
Storing at least one of the plurality of design parameters in the storage device ;
Is determined by at least two or more design departments.
The design departments of the at least two or more design departments
Based on the evaluation characteristics from the viewpoint, the at least one
Evaluation to evaluate total parameters as candidates for the design specification
Calculating the value of the item by the processor, as before
Design perspectives of at least two or more design departments and other
Comprehensive optimization of the product, including the design parameters
From the design point of view, the calculated
And determine the design specification candidates.
Collaborative design support method characterized by having steps
Law. 3. The value of the evaluation item is calculated for each design department.
At least one of a plurality of design parameters
Using an analysis program that takes
The cooperative design support method according to claim 1. Design parameters required for the execution of 4. Before SL analysis program, when the butt of the specifications among the plurality of design items include necessary, the design of the case of changing a few streets values 4. The collaborative design support method according to claim 3, further comprising: generating a plurality of parameters; and determining a design parameter based on the change of the analysis result based on the change of the design parameter. 5. Evaluation by the standpoint of prior Symbol overall optimal design is characterized by performing the comprehensive evaluation operations to optimize the overall evaluation function including an evaluation function for each evaluation item for a certain design parameters The collaborative design support method according to claim 1. 6. least also claim 1, characterized in that as the predicted value of the production cost of one of the measure of evaluation by the perspective values and the overall optimal design of the front Symbol evaluation items <<br/> Cooperative design support method. 7. A co-design support method according to claim 1, before SL respectively corresponding object to determine the candidate before SL product specifications for each design item and performing. 8. A plurality of design departments based on a plurality of design items.
System that determines the design specifications of products designed by
A design parameter for defining design specification candidates for each of the design items.
Means for receiving an input of a meter, and the design parameter for each of the plurality of design items
In the storage device as data corresponding to the number of design departments
Means for storing, and at least one of the plurality of design parameters is small.
Is determined by at least two or more design departments.
The design departments of the at least two or more design departments
Based on the evaluation characteristics from the viewpoint, the at least one
The processing parameter as a candidate for the design specification.
Means, and the evaluated design parameters,
In addition to other design parameters,
From the point of view of optimal design,
Coordination and having a that determine as a complement means
Design support system. 9. A plurality of design departments based on a plurality of design items
System that determines the design specifications of products designed by
A design parameter for defining design specification candidates for each of the design items.
As data corresponding to meters with the multiple design departments
Means for storing in the storage device, and at least one of the plurality of design parameters
Is determined by at least two or more design departments.
The design departments of the at least two or more design departments
Based on the evaluation characteristics from the viewpoint, the at least one
Evaluation to evaluate total parameters as candidates for the design specification
Means for calculating the value of the item by the processing unit, and the small
Design aspects of at least two or more design departments and other
Comprehensive optimal design of the above products, including measurement parameters
From the point of view, trade in the calculated evaluation item
Means for determining off relationship and determining candidates for the design specification
And a collaborative design support system comprising: