JPH0540811A - Method and system for cooperative design support - Google Patents

Abstract

PURPOSE:To early introduce design specifications which can be optimum at the viewpoint of entire associated design items by totally evaluating respective evaluation requirements based on the values of plural evaluation requirements and determining candidate product specifications. CONSTITUTION:Design parameters 18 defining candidate product specifications are inputted in a data input part 21 for each design item, and the parameters 18 for plural design items are unitarily managed by a design parameter management part 22. The values of the evaluation requirements evaluating the candidate product specifications are set by an analyzation execution part 24 based on the unitary management of the parameters 18. Accordingly, plural evaluation items can be optimized as total evaluation and the set values can be determined by totally evaluating the respective evaluation requirements with a total evaluation part based on the values of plural evaluation requirements and determining the candidate for product specifications. Thus, the design specifications which can be optimum at the viewpoint of entire design items associated with the product but which may not necessarily be optimum at the viewpoint of each design item, can be introduced in early stage, regardless of the progress of the design.

Description

Detailed Description of the Invention

[0001]

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates to a design cooperation system of design items for designing from a plurality of viewpoints such as desirable reliability, productivity, operability, etc. for determining product specifications. Perform standing evaluations across multiple design items,
The present invention relates to a collaborative design support method and system that supports collaborative work between departments that design each design item and obtains optimum design values comprehensively.

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art Conventionally, many publications have been made on analysis methods or analysis systems for evaluating and determining product design specifications. As a typical example, as a system for performing a flow analysis and a cooling analysis for designing a mold, a die technique, Volume 2, No. 11, Chapter 2, pp. 16 to 19 (published by Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun) (October 20, 1987)), there are analysis and evaluation techniques. As a result, a representative example of the conventional technology is shown. In the conventional technology, in order to design a mold, a flow analysis,
The heat transfer analysis and the structural analysis are sequentially performed, and the design specifications are confirmed by the individual analysis results. The mold in this case is a jig for molding a product, and therefore its specifications are essentially the analysis of product specifications performed by another design department and the analysis of mold specifications performed by the mold design department. Although it is necessary to make a match, these conventional techniques were not systems for merging analysis from different viewpoints across such multiple departments or making a comprehensive judgment.

[0003]

The above-mentioned prior art does not consider the following points, and determines the design specifications of a product to be designed over a plurality of design items by evaluation from a plurality of different viewpoints. I couldn't. (1) Only by performing a specific analysis with high accuracy and displaying the result graphically, it is not possible to make a comprehensive evaluation from the relationship between the analysis results corresponding to a plurality of evaluation items. (2) At the start of designing in a department that takes charge of the design of a certain design item, design parameters (input data) are not available in the preceding design stage when there is a design progress disagreement between departments, such as design incompetence in other departments, and analysis is performed. Could not be executed. Therefore, in the related art, unless the related design progresses until all the design parameters necessary for the analysis are determined, the evaluation (analysis) cannot be performed, which causes the delay in the design. Or analysis results using design parameters that have been set or virtualized under favorable conditions for the preceding design items,
It was common to evaluate the results with another analysis result using the design parameters set in the design department that follows, and as a result, the evaluation data were usually inconsistent. (3) When there is an analysis program that uses only the design parameters determined by the preceding design department, only the design parameters are optimized and determined, so that the design margin of the design parameters of the subsequent design department is reduced. It was likely to disappear or the evaluation of subsequent design items would be insufficient or exceeded the desired limit.

The object of the present invention is to solve the above-mentioned drawbacks of the prior art, and it may not be optimal in terms of individual design items.
As a product, we perform an overall evaluation that is optimal for the entire design items related to it and an evaluation that includes the prediction of manufacturing costs, 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 that enables such analysis and evaluation at an early stage regardless of the design progress. Another object of the present invention is, in the above-mentioned collaborative design support method, more appropriate than the related design department or the same object when there is an undecided input parameter when executing the analysis program for evaluation for the design item that precedes the design. Is to be able to procure various values. further,
An object of the present invention is to provide the collaborative design support apparatus even when the collaborative design support method is executed via a plurality of workstations or the design departments for each design item are distributed to remote locations by the workstations.

[0005]

In order to achieve the above object, the present invention is a system for determining the design specification of a product whose design is advanced over a plurality of design items. Enter the design parameters that define the candidate, centrally manage the parameters for each of the multiple design items, and set the value of the evaluation requirement to evaluate the candidate of the product specification based on this, and set the multiple evaluation requirements. It is characterized in that each evaluation requirement is comprehensively evaluated based on the value of and the candidate of the product specification is determined. Further, it is possible to determine whether or not the design parameters necessary for executing the analysis program have been set, and if there is a design parameter that has not been set as a result of the determination, it is possible to provisionally determine the design parameter that has not been set. Regarding the design parameters required for the above execution, if there are those that require specification matching between the above multiple design items and those that require mutual trade-offs It is possible to determine a design parameter by generating a plurality of design parameters and obtaining the variation of the analysis result with respect to the change of the design parameter.

As a device configuration of a system for executing these operations, a data input unit for inputting design parameters defining product specification candidates for each of the above design items, a design for centrally managing the above parameters for each of the plurality of design items A parameter management unit, an analysis execution unit that sets a value of an evaluation requirement that evaluates the product specification candidates together with the management unit, and a comprehensive evaluation of trade-offs between the evaluation requirements based on a plurality of the evaluation requirement values. Then, it has a comprehensive evaluation unit such as a trade-off evaluation unit that determines the above-mentioned product specification candidates, and an output unit such as a display that outputs the 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 work station connected via communication control means corresponding to each design item, a signal transmission line connecting the work stations, and at least one central work station connected to the signal transmission line; The workstation for each design item 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 centrally manages all the design parameters related to each design item of the product, and sets, changes, confirms the presence or absence of values, and determines the characteristics (the name of the department that has the decision right, the viewpoint of multiple evaluations). (Necessity of decision etc.)
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, and calls any analysis program as necessary to create an executable environment. The analysis execution unit mainly comprises the following three functions. Design parameter provisional request function If the design parameters required for executing the analysis are not set, the department name or object name that has the right to determine the design parameters is inquired to the above-mentioned design parameter management section, and the values of the relevant design parameters are input. Wait until it runs. Iterative calculation function If it is necessary to determine the trade-off relationship among the required design parameters, multiple input data are generated for multiple changes in the values of the relevant design parameters, and input is made only the number of times The analysis program is repeatedly executed while changing the data. Automatic calculation function When the design parameters necessary for executing the analysis are set or changed, the related analysis program is found from the relationship between the design parameter name and the analysis program name and automatically executed.

The trade-off evaluation unit obtains a design parameter value that maximizes the evaluation formula held internally by iterative calculation from the analysis results having a trade-off relationship for each evaluation item, and evaluates between design items or evaluations. Determine the optimum values of design parameters that require matching between items. The result display unit displays a graph of the design value change of the evaluation value obtained by the trade-off evaluation unit, and also displays the optimum value of the design parameter. Due to the various functions described above, it is not necessarily optimal for each design department, but for the design departments involved as a whole, the evaluation of specification proposals (specification candidates) considering the derivation of design specifications that are optimal is the progress of the design. However, it can be done quickly, and finally an optimal design solution can be obtained. The design parameter management unit further has a design parameter temporary function, and determines the most suitable value by using the read design parameter group as a key based on previously registered past performance data and the like.
The design parameter management unit further has a manufacturing cost prediction function as required, and when the trade-off evaluation unit between design parameters evaluates a trade-off relationship between departments or evaluation items, a clear cost evaluation is performed. A reference can be given and the optimum design value can be easily obtained.

Next, as a hardware functional configuration, 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 is connected to each modem is possible. In this case, each of the workstations performs the same operation corresponding to each of the above-mentioned design departments or objects, and the other one is the center thereof. At the workstation corresponding to each design department, the analysis program corresponding to the sent design parameters is started. If the design parameters necessary for executing the analysis are not available, a provisional design parameter request is made to the workstation of the department or object that has the right to determine the relevant design parameters. In response to this, the above-mentioned central workstation is assigned to each design department or object by the trade-off evaluation section in the workstation. Alternatively, the trade-off relationship between the evaluation items is evaluated, and the evaluation result is sent to the workstation of the related design department or the like. In the workstation of each design department which receives this, the result display section on the main memory displays the sent evaluation result on the display device, and the result is confirmed.

[0010]

The present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the drawings.
FIG. 2 and FIG. 1 are diagrams respectively showing an example of a device configuration and an example of a functional configuration such as software of the collaborative design support system of the present invention. In FIG. 2, the multi-bus 11 under the control of the bus control unit 12 is connected to the central processing unit 13 as well as the disk unit 18 controlled by the disk control unit 17. It also contains a main memory device 14, a display device 16 and a keyboard 15. As a result, the data input from the keyboard 15 is transferred to the central processing unit 13
At the same time as being stored in the main memory 14 by the central processing unit 13, the data in the main memory 14 is stored in the disk unit 17 by the central processing unit 13 via the multi-bus 11 and the disk controller 17. For example, the support transfer of data is performed.

The functional configuration of the present invention is, as shown in FIG. 1, a data input section (function) 21, a design parameter management section (function) 22, an analysis program registration section (function) 23, an analysis execution section (function). 24, a design parameter provisional determination requesting unit (function) 25, an analysis result storage unit (function) 26, a trade-off evaluation unit (function) 27, a result display unit (function) 28, and the like. More specifically, the data input unit 21 determines that the design parameters corresponding to the partial specification proposal (or specification candidate) of the product such as the outer shape and the material, which is input for each design department, and the design department ( Or, enter the evaluation item name corresponding to the design content (for each design item). The design parameter management unit 22 centrally manages all design parameters related to the product, which are input from the data input unit 21 for each design department, and sets, changes values, confirms whether or not there is a property (a department having a decision right). Names, objects with various functions necessary for designing, generals such as blocks, necessity of decision from multiple evaluation points, etc.). The present invention provides a system for supporting collaborative design between design departments in a production factory, and further enables collaborative operation between objects of an expert system and collaboration between other functionally suitable blocks. .. Next, the analysis program registration unit 23 stores the analysis program group for each evaluation item corresponding to the design content of each design department together with the input data (design parameter name) information necessary for its execution, and if necessary, Call a program to create an executable environment.

The analysis execution unit 24 has the following three functions. (A) Design parameter provisional determination 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 parameter set in the design parameter management unit 22. When a required design parameter is not set when you try to execute as an input value, query the design parameter management section for the department name that has the right to determine the design parameter and the block name that has the corresponding function, and apply it. The execution is suspended until the value of the design parameter is input from the data input unit 21 of the design department or the block. (B) Repeated calculation function ... Similarly, when trying to execute the analysis program, it is necessary to make a trade-off judgment in the design parameter management unit 22 among the necessary design parameters (for example, a department or block that has a decision right). There are multiple
Alternatively, if there is one that is stored as (necessary to be matched with the evaluation results of other analysis programs), multiple input data for the case where the value of the corresponding design parameter is changed in multiple ways are generated and generated. The analysis program is repeatedly executed while changing the input data as many times as necessary. (C) Automatic calculation function: In the above (A), when a design parameter that has not been set by another department or block is set as the corresponding design parameter, or the design parameter in the design parameter management unit Is changed, the related analysis program is found and automatically executed from the relationship between the design parameter name and the analysis program name defined in the analysis program registration unit.

The analysis result storage unit 26 stores the analysis result corresponding to the design parameter change for each evaluation item obtained by the analysis execution unit 24, and manages it so that it can be arbitrarily retrieved at the time of comprehensive evaluation. The trade-off evaluation unit 27 iteratively calculates a design parameter value that maximizes the evaluation formula held internally from the analysis results in the trade-off relationship for each evaluation item managed by the analysis result storage unit. Then, the optimum value of the design parameter that needs to be matched between the design departments, blocks, or evaluation items is determined. The result display unit 28 displays the graph of the evaluation value obtained by the trade-off evaluation unit 27 against the change in the design parameter, and at the same time, displays the optimum value of the design parameter. Due to the above-described functions 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. Looking at it separately, it is not necessarily optimal, but it is possible to quickly evaluate the proposed specifications (or candidate specifications) considering the derivation of the optimal design specifications from the involved design departments and blocks as a whole, regardless of the design progress. Finally, the optimal design solution can be obtained.

The design parameter management section 22 further has a design parameter temporary function. This is because, when the design parameter provisional request function of the analysis executing unit 24 makes a provisional request for design parameter values necessary for starting the analysis program by the related design departments or blocks, Make a tentative decision like
It is a function of setting a value in the design parameter management unit. In the operation, first, a design parameter group related to a design target including a design parameter for which a provisional decision request is made is read from the design parameter management unit.
Next, the most suitable value is searched for in the design parameter database 18 using the read design parameter group as a key from the past actual data registered in advance by the temporary design parameter function. The value retrieved by the search is sent to the design parameter management block by the temporary function. The search technique in this case can be a well-known technique applied and implemented for various purposes today. The analysis execution block further has a manufacturing cost prediction function, and the design parameter management unit 2
The manufacturing cost is predicted by calculating the cost prediction function using the design parameter in 2 as an input, and the result is passed to the analysis result storage unit 26. Thereby, in the subsequent trade-off evaluation unit 27, when the trade-off relation between departments and evaluation items is evaluated, a clear evaluation criterion such as 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 the system shown in FIG. The figure shows multibus 1
1, bus profit control device 12, central processing unit 13, disk control device 17, main storage device 14, display device 1
2 shows a workstation composed of a keyboard 15, and a disk 18. The functions of the collaborative design support method shown in FIG. 1 on the main storage device 14 (data non-input portion, design parameter management portion, analysis program registration portion, analysis execution portion, analysis result storage portion, trade-off evaluation portion, result The display unit) is stored, and the disk device 18 stores the design parameters managed by the design parameter management unit 22, the analysis result data managed by the analysis result storage unit 26, and the analysis program registration unit 23. An analysis program stored therein is stored, and the central processing unit operates each means on the main storage unit to perform collaborative design.

Further, as a network system in which a plurality of workstations shown in FIG. 2 are connected, similarly to the above, a bus, a bus controller, a central processing unit, a disk controller, a main memory device, a display device, 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. The structure is shown in FIG. The workstations 1-6 are WS1-6 (301-30
As shown in 6), in this example, the number of workstations is 6, and the LAN network 310 shows a line on a loop, but the network may have a similar configuration in general. In the case of the distributed type, each WS 1 to 6 in FIG. 3 may have the same structure, but in the case of the centralized type, there is at least a central workstation, and in that case, the central workstation has a main memory shown in FIG. Among the functions of the collaborative design support method shown in FIG. 2, the design parameter management unit 22, the analysis program registration 23, the analysis result storage unit 26, the trade-off evaluation unit 27.
And stores the design parameters managed by the design parameter management unit, the analysis result data managed by the analysis result storage unit 26, and the analysis program managed by the analysis program registration unit 26 in the display device. Keep it. Further, in the main memory of the workstation arranged for each design department or each object, the data input unit 21, the analysis result display unit 28, and the temporary design parameter function of the functional configuration of the collaborative design support system of FIG. The past performance parameters managed by the temporary design parameter function are stored in the disk device.

The design parameters corresponding to the design proposal input from the data input section of each design department workstation are sent to the design parameter management section on the central workstation on the network via the modem. At the workstation, an analysis program corresponding to the sent design parameters is started. If the design parameters necessary for executing the analysis are not available, a temporary decision request of the design parameters is made to the work station of the department or the object having the right to decide the corresponding design parameters via the communication control device or the modem. In the above-mentioned department workstation, etc. that received the request via the modem, the temporary design parameter section in the main memory is activated, the value of the design parameter is taken out from the disk unit, and the above-mentioned central unit is accessed via the communication control unit and the modem. Parameter values are 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 the trade-off evaluation unit on the main memory for the trade-off relationship between departments or blocks or evaluation items, and the evaluation result is the communication control device. , Via the modem to the workstation of the relevant design department. In the design department or the workstation for each object, the result display section on the main memory displays the sent evaluation evaluation result on the display device and confirms the result. When setting or changing design parameters once set, input the values from the data input section again, and change the values changed to the design parameter management section on the central workstation via the communication control unit and modem. To set. In this way, the collaborative design support method can be realized even in a design department or the like distributed and arranged in a remote place.

The case where the collaborative design support system according to the present invention is applied to the design of a semiconductor plastic package will be described by way of example. FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram illustrating a typical die for an LSI package. Product 421 is LSI chip 4
It is manufactured by cutting a multiple lead frame 403 in which 01 is bonded with all lines 402 from a frame 420 in which resin molding is performed for each chip. 40
Reference numerals 9 and 405 denote upper and lower molds for performing this resin molding. The lower mold 405 is formed with a cavity 404 for simultaneously molding the lead frame, and the runner groove 40 for pouring the molten resin into the cavity 404.
6 and the gate 407 of each cavity are engraved. A pot 410 for containing resin and a plunger 413 for pushing the pot are fitted to the upper mold 409. A heater 408 for melting the resin is embedded in the upper and lower molds.

FIG. 5 is an enlarged partial cross-sectional view showing in more detail the state of molding of the above-mentioned chips. The specifications of the semiconductor plastic package are such that the chip 52 that constitutes a circuit in the semiconductor element, the frame portion 53 for fixing the chip inside the package and making an electrical connection with the outside world, and the chip frame within the external dimensions of the package. The package (PKG) structure 51, which is configured as described above, is determined by each design process of the molding die 54 for pouring, sealing, and molding the molten resin into the cavity having the external shape of the package, and corresponding to each design process. The circuit (layout) design department, the frame design department, the structure design department, and the die design department respectively work. The circuit design department considers the wiring efficiency of the device and evaluates the wiring length on the chip when designing. In the frame design department, the optimum frame shape that is comfortable between the bonding pad (terminal) on the chip and the frame and the tension of the gold wire for electrical connection between the chip and the outside of the package. Design and do. The structural design department evaluates the heat application force applied to the package composed of members with different thermal expansion coefficients such as metal, silicon, and resin against the thermal stress applied to the package, and designs a structurally strong member arrangement. .. In the mold design department, due to the resin flowing into the cavity,
The shape and molding conditions are evaluated while evaluating the flow state of the resin because the viscosity and flow velocity of the inflowing resin are evaluated and the insert (chip frame) that divides the cavity into two parts is used to prevent the gold wire from being pushed and bent. Design for equal mold specifications. Here, there is the following trade-off relationship between the design parameters handled by each design department, for example. The larger the distance from the bottom surface of the package to the bottom surface of the tab (frame part on which the chip is placed) (hereinafter referred to as the tab bottom dimension), the smaller the thermal stress. However, the resin flow during molding is less likely to occur in the insert part. Balance tends to occur. (Flow imbalance causes defects (voids) in which air remains in the package). If the layout pattern of the bonding pad on the chip is set so that the wiring efficiency in the chip is optimized, the distance from the bonding position on the frame side becomes long, and the gold wire is easily bent during molding.

This will be described in detail below with reference to the drawings. 6 and 7 are diagrams for explaining the trade-off relationship. Each of the figures shows how the parameter values change (characteristics) when the tab-under dimension h is taken as the horizontal axis. As shown in FIG. 6, the resin flow unbalance shows a downward convex type characteristic 650, and has an optimum tab lower dimension which is the lower limit. On the other hand, since the thermal stress in FIG. 7 shows a characteristic 750 that monotonically decreases, the condition of the value of h under tab that gives the minimum flow unbalance and the value of h that minimizes the thermal stress are the same. 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 inconsistencies between the characteristics into one parameter. 8 and 9 are diagrams for explaining the trade-off relationship. Both figures show the same horizontal axis, but the horizontal axis of the figure shows the way of arranging the pads 81 of the semiconductor chip 82 (layout pattern) as shown in FIG. Two types are shown. As such a layout pattern, for example, the pads are arranged along edges, the pads are arranged along the center line, the pads are arranged along the longitudinal direction or the width direction, etc. It can be implemented. The plotted parameter values 85 and 95 are the analysis programs f ₃ and f ₄ shown, respectively.
It is the result of calculation by, and shows monotonic characteristics opposite to each other. In such a case as well, as in the case of the above-mentioned trade-off relationship, an optimum trade-off between the contradictory characteristics as a comprehensive desirable scale as a product is made possible.

Next, in order to carry out the evaluation in consideration of the trade-off relations such as the above, it is necessary to have various design parameters determined by each design department at the time of evaluation. Since the design progress is different, the preceding design department does not have the same design parameters and cannot perform the analysis. Next, the processing procedure of the present invention for processing such problems without contradiction will be described. Prior to system startup, the disk 18 managed by the design parameter management unit 22 stores data structured as shown in FIG. As shown in the figure, a design parameter name group 1012 that determines the semiconductor package specifications
Is a code 1011, a responsible department name 1012 that has the right to determine parameters, information 1014 such as whether or not there is a trade-off relationship between evaluation items, and the corresponding evaluation program 101.
Predefined together with 5. By the analysis program registration unit 23 of FIG.
In FIG. 8, as shown in FIG. 11, an analysis program 1101 corresponding to each evaluation item is registered in the illustrated configuration.
That is, the program names 1112 corresponding to the code names f _{1 to} f ₄ (1111) of the respective evaluation items and the design parameters 1113 necessary for executing the respective programs f _{1 to} f ₄ are correspondingly registered together as shown in the drawing. Has been done.

(First Embodiment) Hereinafter, the first embodiment in which the design (setting of parameter values) is proceeded among the above-mentioned design departments, that is, in the order of the structural design departments, will be described with reference to FIGS. 12 and 13. A flow chart will be described. Hereinafter, the design systems for coordinating between the design departments in the production plant will be described in detail, but these design departments can also use the same system for each object of the expert system and each block of the functional block system as described above. However, as the first embodiment, the case of supporting the conventional cooperation between design departments will be described in detail.

First, the operator of the structural design department uses the keyboard 15 (FIG. 2) to input package data such as package outer dimensions, tab bottom dimensions, heating test data to be given to the package, resin material constituting the package, and evaluation items. (Stress analysis) is input, and the data is input 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). When this is shown in FIG. 10, the decision-responsible department name 1013 in the figure corresponds to P1, P2, P3 of code 1011 corresponding to the structural design.
This means that P7, P12 and P13 have been designed. next,
The system determines whether or not there is an instruction regarding evaluation (process 106), confirms the input instruction for executing the stress analysis, and instructs the analysis executing unit 24 to perform stress analysis as an evaluation item. .. The analysis execution unit 24 registers the stress analysis program f ₁ from the disk 18 in the analysis program registration 23 and the design parameter names P1, P3 necessary for its execution.
P4, P6, P7, P8, P9, P12, P13 are first
1) It is read from FIG. 1113 and loaded into the main storage device 14 via the disk controller 17, multibus 11, and central processing unit 13 (108). Here, the analysis executing unit 24 compares the values of the design parameters registered in the disk 18 with the parameter names read in the main memory, and determines the design parameters of 1113 necessary for executing the program f ₁ . It is determined whether all the values are included (process 110). In this case, as is clear from FIG. 11 and FIG. 1113, it is found that the chip width P4, the chip height P6, and the frame thickness P8 and the frame material P9, which are determined by the circuit design department and the frame design department, are not set. .. So, the system is P4, P6 of the circuit design department,
The design parameter provisional determination request unit 25 issues a provisional determination request to the frame design department to provisionally determine the values of P8 and P9.
(Processing 112).

The circuit design department and the frame design department that have received the provisional decision request set a provisional decision value based on past data and a value under consideration, and input it 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 causes the analysis program registration unit 23 to display the parameter P.
All the analysis programs having 4, P6, P8, and P9 as arguments are loaded from the disk 18 into the main storage device 14 (process 114). Next, the analysis executing unit 24 compares the read parameter names necessary for executing each program with the design parameters already set in the disk 18, and as a result, finds f ₁ as an executable analysis program (Process 11).
0). Next, the analysis execution unit 24 confirms that there is a trade-off relationship between the evaluation items for the tab bottom dimension P7 by 1014 among the design parameters 1001 stored in the disk 18 (process 116), and the value of P7. The execution of the analysis program f ₁ using the values obtained by changing several types is instructed (processes 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). When the above analysis f _{1 in} which the tab bottom dimension P7 is variously changed is completed (process 124), the process proceeds to the next step. The analysis program 11 loaded in the main memory 14 at the end of execution of the stress analysis program f _1.
01 is the parameter P4, P6, as shown in FIG.
P8, f ₂ associated with the P9, f _3, is f _4, similarly to the stress analysis program f _1, repeat unset parameter provisionally determined request (112) or the like, the analysis execution unit 24 to perform the execution of the analysis Is instructed (process 128).

Here, the above processing is repeated to carry out the processing shown in FIGS.
The analysis data shown in the figure shall be obtained. Among the execution results of the analysis programs f _{1 to} f ₄ obtained here, those related to the analysis f ₁ and f ₂ related to the structural design department are instructed by the trade-off evaluation unit 27 to receive the analysis result storage unit. It is taken out from 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 is a polynomialization 1311, a standardization 1312, and an optimization 131 of the characteristic with respect to the tab undersize in FIGS. 6 and 7 described above.
It shows that the processing of 3 is sequentially performed. The trade-off evaluation unit 27 polynomial-approximates the captured analysis result by using the least square method. For example, the polynomial for the stress value applied to the parameter

[Equation 1] However, it is approximated by X: tab bottom dimension, G (x): stress value, αi: coefficient (process 130).

Next, the trade-off evaluation unit 27 scales the desirability of each parameter from the analysis result obtained by calculating the above polynomial to a range of 0 to 1, and the best case is 1 and the worst case is. 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 the maximum, the conversion is performed as shown in the following expression (2) (FIG. 14, 1312).

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

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

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

Next, the result display section 28 displays a graph for the design parameter change of the evaluation value obtained by the trade-off evaluation section 27 to the structural design section and the mold design section, and at the same time, FIG. Xopt at 1315
The optimum values of the design parameters are displayed as shown in (Process 13
8). In this way, the structural design department, which precedes the other design departments, uses the provisionally determined values of the design parameters sent from the other design departments to perform analysis corresponding to various evaluation items, thereby It is possible to examine design specifications that are in agreement with the department from an early stage. First
Figure 4 illustrates the above process. Where 131
4 and its display screen 1316 show that the coefficients a ₁ , a ₂ ... Of the evaluation formula (4) are reset at appropriate times according to the product and its application conditions. Next, a case will be described in which the operator of the circuit design department inputs input data such as the chip width, the chip length, the height, the layout pattern data of the chip side bonding pad, and the connection coordinates in the chip from the keyboard 15. .. In this case, among the values input here, the values different from the values tentatively determined in the previous structural design stage are the chip side bonding pad layout pattern data P16 and the in-chip connection coordinate data P1.
Assume that it is 7. The data taken in the system by the data input unit 21 (process 102) is then stored in the disk 18 by the design parameter management unit 22 when the decision responsible department name 1013 in FIG. Is P4, P5, P6, P16, P
It is set as 17 (process 104). As in the case of the structural design department, the system next determines whether or not there is an instruction regarding evaluation (process 106).

At this time, since the instruction regarding the evaluation item has not been input, the analysis execution unit 24 causes the analysis program registration unit 23 to rewrite the parameters P16 and P17 for which the current value has been rewritten, as in the process in the structural design department. All of the analysis programs with the argument as an argument are loaded from the disk 18 into the main storage device 14 (process 114). Next, the analysis executing unit 24
The parameter names necessary for executing the read programs are compared with the parameters already set (including those temporarily determined) in the disk 18, and as a result, the executable programs f ₂ and f ₄ are found (process 110). ). Of the parameters used in f ₂ and f ₄ , the chip side bonding pad layout pattern P16 is shown in FIG.
Since it is recognized that there is a trade-off relationship by 4 (process 116), f _{2 obtained} by changing the value of P16 by several types,
instructs execution of f ₄ (process 118 to 124). After that, the trade-off of the wiring length in the chip and the amount of deformation of the gold wire with respect to the change in the parameter of the layout pattern of the bonding pad on the chip side is evaluated in the same manner as the above-mentioned processing in the structure design department (processing 128 to 136), and the circuit design A graph of the evaluation including the optimum value of the parameter is displayed for the department (process 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, according to the progress of the design, even if the parameter values that were tentatively decided are changed, the related analysis program is immediately started and the design plan that needs to be associated with other design departments. Can be examined. Similarly for subsequent die design and frame design, a related evaluation program is automatically implemented for changes in tentative values, and optimization of design parameters that requires examination from many points of view is performed. It is possible to quickly find the optimum specifications as seen from the overall parameters of the product regardless of the progress of the design.

(Second Embodiment) The collaborative design support system between the design departments in the production plant has been described as the first embodiment. Next, in the case where this system is an automation system using an expert system (second embodiment) Examples) will be described in detail with reference to the drawings. FIG. 15 is a diagram of an expert system of the present invention for supporting collaborative design. As shown, this expert system has an object 151
1, 1512, 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 execution of the Fi, and an object control unit Ci (1523) that controls the operation of Fi at all. As shown, each object may share certain major design parameters. The analysis program Fi performs the same analysis as f _{1 in} the case of the first embodiment, and the design parameter group 1522 is also the same as the design parameter group Pi of the first embodiment. The specific processing flow is the same as in the case of FIG. 12 and FIG. 13, and the operation between objects is the same as that in which the respective design departments of the first embodiment are replaced with corresponding objects. Therefore, the decision-responsible department shown in FIG. 1013 can be replaced with an object having a function of performing the corresponding design.

As a result, all the contents specifically shown as the processing between the design departments in the first embodiment can be handled as the processing between the objects in the second embodiment. The case where the corresponding object performs the operation performed between the design departments in the first embodiment will be described below with reference to FIGS. 16 to 19. As shown, in each figure, the preset parameters are shaded, and the design parameters without shade are not set. FIG. 16 and FIG. 17 show an example of a case where specification evaluations between a plurality of design items are synchronously performed. Each operation can be seen in correspondence with the flowcharts of FIGS. 12 and 13. Now, it is assumed that the activation request 1621 is issued to the thermal stress analysis program F1. This corresponds to the state in which the evaluation item is instructed in the determination of the process 106 in FIG. 12 and the analysis program reading of the process 108 is performed. As a result, the object 1511 executes the processing 110 and checks whether or not the design parameters necessary for the execution of F1 are complete. However, as shown in FIG. 16, the design parameters 2 and 3 are not set, and the provisional determination request of the processing 112 is made. (1622). On the other hand, the values of already set parameters 1, 4, 5 are read (1623). Next, similarly to the case of the first embodiment, the design parameter 2 provisionally determined
FIG. 17 (1624) which reads and 3 and 3 corresponds to the processes 102 and 104. Here, since the necessary design parameters in step 110 are met, F1 executes the subsequent steps. (1625).

FIG. 18 and FIG. 19 show a case in which the processes corresponding to the processes 118 to 124 in the case where there is a trade-off relationship between the evaluation items are executed in the execution of the above F1.
When the value of the design parameter 5 is changed due to the trade-off relationship (1821), since the analysis programs F1 and F2 are related to this parameter in this case, F
Both 1 and F2 try to execute the analysis program (process 120). At this time, F1 can be re-executed immediately (1822 in FIG. 19) because it has the necessary design parameters, but F2 issues a provisional request for this because design parameter 6 is not set (1824). On the other hand, the preset design parameters are read (1823). In this way, the analysis program F2 also reads the value of the design parameter 6 provisionally determined (1825) and executes the following steps. The change value set according to the trade-off relationship below (Process 11
The process 120 to 124 is executed a necessary number of times for 8) and the setting is made so that the optimum trade-off condition is satisfied, as in the case of the first embodiment. The second embodiment for realizing the collaborative design system of the present invention by the expert system has been described above. According to the second embodiment, the present invention is semi-automatic or fully automated, and is shown in FIGS.
It is possible to quickly execute the processing including the drawing.

[0032]

As is apparent from the above description, according to the present invention, the following effects can be expected. (1) It is possible to obtain the analysis result while procuring the design parameters necessary for the execution of the individual evaluation / analysis corresponding to the evaluation item existing for each design item. At the same time, optimization can be performed as a comprehensive evaluation among multiple evaluation items, and the setting value is determined by this, so it is not necessarily optimal when viewed by design item, but it is considered optimal when viewed by the entire design items related to the product. The derivation of the design specification can be performed at an early stage regardless of the design progress. (2) In the above (1), it is possible to automatically procure the design parameters necessary for executing the analysis program,
Moreover, undecided design parameters can be set by tentative decision,
Since the evaluation can be performed, the optimum design specifications can be quickly derived. (3) It is possible to provide a collaborative design support device that realizes the above-described functions as an automated or semi-automated system by an expert system for object-oriented knowledge representation. (4) Even if the design departments are distributed to remote locations, the collaborative design support described in (1) can be achieved even if the design departments are distributed to the design departments as workstations and distributed by design departments and connected by a network. You can do it. Furthermore, this will provide a new FA (Factory Automation) system or OA system. (5) When matching design specifications between design items and evaluation items, it is possible to give a consistent evaluation scale called the manufacturing cost prediction value corresponding to the design specifications, and easily determine the optimum design value. it can.

[0033]

[Brief description of 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 diagram.

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

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

FIG. 7 is a graph display diagram showing an image of analysis results 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 display diagram 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 according to the present invention (division 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 showing the operation of the second embodiment of the present invention (segmental diagram of FIG. 16).

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

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

[0034]

[Explanation 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 Part 26 analysis result storage part 27 trade-off evaluation part 28 result display part 51 package structure 52 circuit 53 frame 54 mold die 1411 object 1412 object 1413 object 1421 in-object analysis program processing part 1423 object control part

 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────── ─── Continuation of the front page (72) Inventor Junichi Saeki, 292 Yoshida-cho, Totsuka-ku, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa Prefectural Institute of Industrial Science and Technology (72) Inventor Kunihiko Nishi 1450, Kamimizumoto-cho, Kodaira-shi, Tokyo Hitachi, Ltd. Semiconductor Design Development Center

Claims (15)

[Claims] 1. A system for determining design specifications of a product to be designed across a plurality of design items, wherein a step of inputting design parameters defining a candidate of product specifications for each of the design items, Centrally managing the above design parameters for each design item, and setting the value of the evaluation requirement for evaluating the above product specification candidates based on this, comprehensively evaluating each evaluation requirement based on a plurality of the above evaluation requirement values A collaborative design support method comprising a step of evaluating and determining a candidate of the product specification. 2. The collaborative design support method according to claim 1, wherein an analysis program for setting a value of the evaluation requirement is stored in advance for each of the evaluation requirements. 3. When executing the analysis program, a step of determining whether or not design parameters necessary for the execution have been set, and when there is an unset design parameter as a result of the determination, the unset design The method according to claim 2, further comprising the step of tentatively determining parameters. 4. A plurality of design parameters generated when the values are changed in several ways when the design parameters necessary for the execution include those that require specification matching among the plurality of design items. 3. The method according to claim 2, further comprising the step of: (1) determining the variation of the analysis result with respect to the change of the design parameter, and determining the design parameter. 5. The collaborative design support method according to claim 1, further comprising a step of evaluating a trade-off between the evaluation requirements, and performing the comprehensive evaluation including the evaluation of the trade-off. 6. The collaborative design support method according to claim 3, wherein in the step of temporarily determining the design parameter, an appropriate value is evaluated and selected based on past performance data regarding the design parameter. 7. The collaborative design support according to claim 1, wherein the comprehensive evaluation is performed by a comprehensive evaluation operation for optimizing a comprehensive evaluation function including an evaluation function for each evaluation requirement for a certain design parameter. Method. 8. The collaborative design support method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the value of the evaluation requirement and the scale of the comprehensive evaluation is used as a predicted value of the manufacturing cost. 9. The collaborative design support method according to claim 1, wherein the corresponding design department determines the product specification candidates for each of the design items. 10. The collaborative design support method according to claim 1, wherein the corresponding objects determine the product specification candidates for each of the design items. 11. A system for determining design specifications of a product whose design is to be advanced over a plurality of design items,
A means for inputting design parameters that define a product specification candidate for each design item, a means for centrally managing the parameters for each of the plurality of design items, and a value of an evaluation requirement for evaluating the product specification candidate together with the means. A collaborative design support system having means for setting, and means for comprehensively evaluating each evaluation requirement based on a plurality of values of the evaluation requirement to determine a candidate for the product specification. 12. A system for deciding design specifications of a product to be designed across a plurality of design items,
Data input means for inputting design parameters for defining product specification candidates for each design item, design parameter management means for centrally managing the design parameters for each of the plurality of design items, and product specification candidates together with the management means. Analysis execution means for setting the value of the evaluation requirement to be evaluated, and Tradeo evaluation means for comprehensively evaluating the evaluation requirements (trade-offs among them) based on the values of the plurality of evaluation requirements and determining the candidates for the product specifications And a collaborative design support system having means for outputting the determined result. 13. A workstation according to claim 12, wherein each workstation comprises workstations connected by disassembling communication control means corresponding to each design item, and a signal transmission path connecting the workstations. A collaborative design support system characterized by having. 14. A workstation to which communication control means is opened and connected corresponding to each design item, a signal transmission line connecting the workstations, and at least one central work connected to the signal transmission line. A workstation for each design item has at least the data input means, the design parameter management means and the analysis executing means of claim 12, and the central work station has at least the comprehensive workstation of claim 11. A collaborative design support system having means for performing evaluation. 15. The collaborative design support system according to claim 13, wherein each workstation is remotely located.