Design support device and design support method

Abstract

To improve the efficiency of correction in design.SOLUTION: A design support device according to the present invention includes: a checking part that extracts a plurality of design rule violations from a design on the basis of the content of the design for the design object and predetermined design rules; and a data analysis part that identifies correction procedures corresponding to the extracted plurality of design rule violations and determines a correction order for the plurality of design rule violations using correction parameters indicated by the identified correction procedures.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

[Technical field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a technique for creating design data of an object to be designed, and in particular to a technique for supporting the correction of a portion of the design data that does not satisfy design rules. [Background technology]

[0002] Three-dimensional CAD (Computer Aided Design) is widely used as a design tool for designing design objects. Three-dimensional CAD (hereinafter referred to as CAD) is a tool for creating the shape of a design object on a computer, and allows the designer to freely define the shape according to his or her intention. When designing a design object, it is necessary to define a shape that satisfies multiple requirements, taking into consideration manufacturing requirements based on machine tools and production technology, safety based on strength and temperature, operability based on ease of operation and ease of removal, and usage requirements such as maintainability. Such requirements that designers must follow are called design rules in this specification. There is a technology described in (Non-Patent Document 1) that automatically checks these design rules on CAD and highlights any parts that violate the rules.

[0003] Patent Document 1 also proposes a technology that not only displays violations in the design of a design object, but also supports the correction of the violations. Patent Document 1 describes a design support device that checks whether the parameters of parts on a CAD are set appropriately and supports correction based on guidelines for correcting parts that do not satisfy the conditions. In Patent Document 1, when correcting multiple violations, it is possible to define the merits and demerits of corrections by searching for constraint relationships on the CAD, investigating in advance the range of influence at the time of correction and contradictions caused by the correction, and quantitatively replacing the degree of influence as an evaluation value. In addition to constraint relationships, it is also possible to evaluate the man-hours required for correction measures by searching for the number of dimensions, the number of related parts, and the number of assemblies. [Prior art documents] [Non-patent literature]

[0004] [Non-Patent Document 1] HARIYA, Masayuki, etc. Technique for checking design rules for three-dimensional CAD data, Computer Science and Information Technology (ICCSIT), 2010 3rd IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, 2010, pp. 296-300. [Patent documents]

[0005] [Patent Document 1] JP 2007-323508 A Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0006] However, Non-Patent Document 1 and Patent Document 1 have the following problems. In Non-Patent Document 1 and Patent Document 1, a check function works based on a predefined threshold value, and violations are detected and displayed in a list. Here, the designer may make corrections to the violations displayed in this list.

[0007] When making corrections to violations like this, it may not be efficient for the designer to make the corrections randomly. For example, when checking a CAD that has a through hole in a plastic part, the edge of the through hole is processed with fillet R. In this case, the through hole violates two design rules: "The minimum fillet R dimension must be X mm or more" and "The minimum hole diameter must be D mm or more."

[0008] So, suppose that you first correct the fillet R dimension, and then in a later process, redraw the hole diameter larger to correct the design rule violation. In this case, because the hole diameter was corrected in the later process, the through hole edge is released without the fillet R, which results in unnecessary work such as rework and design change processing after release. In particular, if there are multiple design rule violations and their correction positions in the same part or location, one of the corrections will be invalid or ignored, resulting in the above-mentioned work.

[0009] In this way, the order in which design rule violations are corrected is important, but this point has not been taken into consideration in the prior art. The present invention aims to improve the efficiency of corrections in design. [Means for solving the problem]

[0010] In order to solve the above problem, in the present invention, the order of each correction is determined according to a correction parameter indicating the effort of the correction process in a correction procedure indicating the order of correction for multiple design rule violations. Note that the effort in the present invention includes the number of correction processes, the number of steps, and rework, and indicates the labor and time spent on the correction.

[0011] More specifically, for example, the configuration described in the claims is adopted. That is, one aspect of the present invention is a design support device for supporting the design of a design object, comprising: a check unit that extracts a plurality of design rule violations from the design based on the contents of the design of the design object and a predetermined design rule; and a data analysis unit that identifies repair procedures corresponding to the extracted plurality of design rule violations and determines a repair order for the plurality of design rule violations using repair parameters indicated by the identified repair procedures. The data analysis unit acquires correction log data as past correction procedures, compares the extracted violations of the plurality of design rules with the correction log data, identifies correction log data corresponding to the violations of the plurality of design rules, and determines the correction order of the correction log data as the correction order. This includes a design support device. Effect of the Invention

[0012] According to the present invention, it is possible to improve the efficiency of corrections in design. [Brief description of the drawings]

[0013] [Figure 1] FIG. 2 is a functional block diagram of a design support device according to the first and second embodiments. [Diagram 2] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a CAD operation screen showing a check execution result in the first and second embodiments. [Figure 3A] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of correction log data used in the first and second embodiments. [Figure 3B] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of correction log data created for each part used in the first and second embodiments. [Figure 4] FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating another example of the log data used in the first and second embodiments. [Diagram 5] FIG. 3B is a diagram for explaining an example of a repair process indicated by the repair log data of FIG. 3A in the first embodiment. [Figure 6] 11 is a flowchart showing a process of determining a modification order in the first embodiment. [Figure 7] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing a violation result list screen in the first and second embodiments. [Figure 8] FIG. 11 is a diagram for explaining an example of a CAD operation screen on which design rule violations are grouped and output in the second embodiment; [Figure 9] FIG. 1 is a system configuration diagram of a design system including a design support device according to first and second embodiments. [Figure 10] 13 is a flowchart showing a process of determining a modification order in the second embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0014] Hereinafter, an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings. In this embodiment, a design support device that supports the design of a design object uses a correction procedure that indicates the order of corrections for multiple design rule violations to determine the order of corrections for violations of design rules. This correction procedure has a correction parameter that indicates the effort of the correction process in itself. As a specific example of this design support device, Examples 1 and 2 are exemplified below. First, Example 1 presents a correction order using log data. In Example 2, design objects that violate design rules and are close to each other in the upper position are grouped and presented. In each of these examples, a CAD "engine cover for automobiles" is checked for violations of design rules such as "minimum fillet R shall be a specified radius of 3.0 mm or more," "minimum gap of vertical wall shall be specified value of 5.0 mm or more," and "minimum diameter of hole shall be 10.0 mm or more." Then, a correction order for corrections is determined for multiple design rule violations that violate these design rules. In each example, correction log data is used as the correction procedure, and correction period, correction amount, and common indexes based on these are used as correction parameters. In addition, the design object in each embodiment includes not only the final product but also the parts, modules, fixtures, equipment, and the like that constitute the final product. EXAMPLES

[0015] First, the configuration of this embodiment will be described. FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram showing the functional blocks of a design support device 100 in this embodiment. This diagram is also common to embodiment 2. The design support device 100 executes a function of supporting the correction of a violation portion of a design object. The design support device 100 determines a correction order using input data 101 and correction log data 103. For this purpose, the design support device 100 has a check unit 102 and a data analysis unit 104, and further has an output unit 105 that outputs the correction order. Here, the output unit 105 can be realized by a display unit that displays the output contents. The output unit 105 may also output by voice or print.

[0016] Here, the input data 101 includes CAD data, which is a type of design data of a design object, and design rules. Furthermore, the checking unit 102 checks whether there is any violation of the design rules based on the CAD data of the design object and the design rules in the input data 101. In other words, it extracts any violation of the design rules. Note that the extraction of the violation of the design rules can be realized, for example, by combining or matching the design rules of the design contents.

[0017] If the check result indicates that there is a violation, checking unit 102 outputs the violation as a design rule violation to data analysis unit 104. Note that checking unit 102 may cause output unit 105 to output the design rule violation. It is also desirable for checking unit 102 to output the check result even when there is no violation. In this case, when there is no violation, output may be limited to output unit 105. This makes it possible to avoid unnecessary output to data analysis unit 104 and processing therein.

[0018] Furthermore, the data analysis unit 104 searches for correction log data 103 similar to the CAD data of the design object that has been found to violate the design rules by the check unit 102. For this purpose, for example, correction log data having a similar shape is acquired. Then, the data analysis unit 104 uses the similar correction log data to determine the correction order for the design rule violation. Then, the data analysis unit 104 outputs the determined correction order to the output unit 105. As a result, the output unit 105 outputs the determined correction order.

[0019] Among these processes, the details of the process of the data analysis unit 104 will be described later with reference to the flowchart of FIG. 6. Here, an example of the hardware configuration of the design support device 100 will be described together with related devices. FIG. 9 is a system configuration diagram of a design system 1 including the design support device 100 in this embodiment and embodiment 2. The design system 1 has the design support device 100, a database 110, and a CAD device 120, which are connected to each other via a network 130. The design support device 100 and the CAD device 120 can be realized by a computer that executes processes according to a program. However, they may be realized by dedicated hardware or the like instead of a program.

[0020] First, the design support device 100 has a network I / F 11, a processing unit 12, a main memory unit 13, an auxiliary memory unit 14, an input unit 16, and an output unit 105. These are connected to each other via an internal communication path such as a bus. Each component will be described below.

[0021] First, the network I / F 11 has a function of connecting to various components of the design support device 100 and other devices via a network 130. Note that the network 130 may be of any type, such as the Internet, as long as it has a communication function.

[0022] The processing unit 12 is realized by a processor such as a CPU. That is, the processing unit 12 executes the processes as described in FIG.

[0023] Next, the main storage unit 13 is realized by a storage medium such as a memory. The main storage unit 13 is stored in the auxiliary storage unit 14, and each program for performing processing in the processing unit 12 is developed in the main storage unit 13. In this way, it is usually desirable that each program is stored in another storage unit or storage medium such as the auxiliary storage unit 14.

[0024] Next, the auxiliary storage unit 14 stores various information and programs. The various information includes design rules 143. Although not shown, the auxiliary storage unit 14 may also store the determined modification order. Furthermore, in this embodiment, the CAD data 1101 is stored in the external database 110, but it may also be stored in the auxiliary storage unit 14.

[0025] The programs stored in the auxiliary storage unit 14 include a check program 141 and a data analysis program 142. Here, the check program 141 is for implementing the processing of the check unit 102 in Fig. 1. Also, the data analysis program 142 is for implementing the processing of the data analysis unit 104.

[0026] The auxiliary storage unit 14 can be realized by a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid state drive (SSD), various optical disks, etc. The information stored in the auxiliary storage unit 14 may be stored in an external storage device connected via a network I / 111, or may be distributed from an external device via a network 130.

[0027] Next, the input unit 16 can be realized by an input device such as a keyboard or pointing, and accepts user operations. Moreover, the output unit 105 outputs the processing results of the processing unit 12, etc. Note that when the design support device 100 is realized by a server or the like and also includes a terminal device, the input unit 16 and the output unit 105 can be omitted. This concludes the explanation of the design support device 100, and next, the database 110 will be explained.

[0028] The database 110 stores CAD data 1101, which is an example of design data, and correction log data 103. The database 110 may also store design rules 143.

[0029] The CAD device 120 also has a function of designing the design object. To this end, it executes processing according to a design program. It is also desirable to output, such as displaying, the modification order determined by the design support device 100 on the display screen or the like. It is also desirable to store a design program for realizing the CAD function, that is, the design function, in the auxiliary storage unit 14 of the design support device 100. In other words, it is desirable to provide the design function itself in the design support device 100. It is also desirable to cause an apparatus having a design function to output, such as displaying, the modification order determined by the design support device 100.

[0030] This concludes the explanation of the configuration of this embodiment, and the details of the processing of this embodiment will now be explained. Note that the subject of the processing will be described with reference to FIG. 1. First, in this embodiment, it is assumed that a design object is designed and CAD data 1101 is created. This design may be complete or may be in the middle of being designed. Then, the check unit 102 uses the design rules to check the CAD data of the design object, and outputs the check execution result to the output unit 105. Then, the output unit 105 outputs this check execution result.

[0031] Fig. 2 is a CAD operation screen 200 showing the results of the check. The CAD operation screen 200 shows the display contents, which are an example of the output from the output unit 105. Fig. 2(a) shows the entire CAD operation screen 200, and (b) shows the contents of a violation result list screen 202 on the CAD operation screen 200. In Fig. 2(a), the CAD operation screen 200 has a CAD image 201 to be checked and a violation result list screen 202. Of these, the CAD image 201 is an enlarged view of a violation location on an automobile engine cover, which is the object to be designed.

[0032] Moreover, the violation result list screen 202 lists design rule violations. As shown in the violation result list screen 202 of FIG. 2(b), a total of seven design rule violations have been extracted. These are the check results of the checking unit 102, and do not indicate the order of correction. The violation result list screen 202 has an ID 203, a design rule name 204, and a shape name 205. Here, the ID 203 is information that is automatically assigned to identify the design rule violation, and in this embodiment, a serial number is used. The fillet R1 and hole diameter 1, which are the design rule violation parts enlarged in the CAD image 201, correspond to ID1 and ID7.

[0033] Moreover, the design rule name 204 is the name of the design rule corresponding to the design rule violation. The design rule names of the design rule violations enlarged in the CAD image 201 are ID1:X0001 and ID7:X0003. In this figure, three design rules X0001 to X0003 are output. Details of these will be described later. In addition, the shape name 205 can use the feature name of the design rule violation (the smallest unit when creating a shape with solid CAD) or the name of a characteristic shape. The shape names of the design rule violations enlarged in the CAD image 201 are ID1: "fillet R1" and ID7: "hole diameter 1". In this figure, there are three types of shape names: fillet R, vertical wall, and hole diameter.

[0034] These shape names are associated with the three design rules as follows: Design rule X0001: "The minimum fillet radius must be greater than or equal to the specified radius of 3.0 mm." Design rule X0002: "The minimum gap between vertical walls must be 5.0 mm or more." Design rule X0003: "The minimum diameter of the hole must be 10.0 mm or more." The information indicating the result of the check performed by the check unit 102 may be at least one of the CAD image 201 and the violation result list.

[0035] Next, a process of specifying the modification order in the data analysis unit 104 will be described with reference to the flowchart of Fig. 6. Fig. 6 is a flowchart showing a process of determining the modification order in this embodiment.

[0036] In step S600, the data analysis unit 104 reads the CAD data of the design object and the design deviations extracted by the check unit 102 as input data. In addition, in step S601, the data analysis unit 104 reads the correction log data 103 as input data. Here, the correction log data 103 will be explained. The correction log data 103 can be realized as shown in Figs. 3A to 4, but first, the general contents of the correction log data 103 will be explained. Then, the specific contents of the correction log data 103 will be explained using Figs. 3A to 4.

[0037] These correction log data 103 are a type of correction procedure that indicates the procedure of the correction process for a violation of a design rule. The correction log data 103 includes a correction parameter that indicates the effort of the correction process. The correction log data 103 is for each correction, and it is desirable that a record is created for each design rule violation that is the cause of the correction. For this reason, the correction log data 103 includes the following items: CAD name: An item that identifies the CAD data of a design object that has previously violated a design rule (an item that identifies the design object may also be used). Part name: An item that identifies the part that constitutes the design object of the CAD data corresponding to the CAD name (this item can be omitted in Figure 3B) Design rule name: An item that identifies the design rule used in the design rule violation. Shape name: An item that indicates the shape or feature where the design rule violation occurred. - Fix order: An item that indicates the order of fixes in the fix process in response to design rule violations. Correction period: An item indicating the period required for correction in the above correction process. Correction amount: Item showing the amount of correction in the correction process mentioned above The correction order, the correction period, and the correction amount are examples of the correction parameters, and at least one of them may be used. For these, for example, when a check is performed using a plurality of design rules and a plurality of design rule violations are found as a result, it is desirable to record the time required to correct the design rule violations, the amount of correction at the time of correction, etc., in association with the order in which the corrections were made. The amount of correction may be data that can be handled quantitatively, such as the amount of change in volume or area before and after correction, in addition to the number of CAD operations at the time of correction.

[0038] Next, the contents of the correction log data 103 shown in Fig. 3A to Fig. 4 will be specifically described. Here, Fig. 3A and Fig. 4 are diagrams showing an example of the correction log data 103 compiled for each design object, and Fig. 3B is a diagram showing an example of the correction log data 103 compiled for each part constituting the design object.

[0039] Fig. 3B shows the correction log data 103 for each part corresponding to Fig. 3A. Also, the correction log data for each part corresponding to Fig. 4 can be illustrated, but an illustration thereof will be omitted since it overlaps with the explanation of Fig. 3B.

[0040] First, Fig. 3A and Fig. 4 will be described, and then Fig. 3B will be described. CAD name 300 in Fig. 3A indicates that the data is of a revision history of CAD data "A01". On the other hand, it can be seen that CAD name 400 in Fig. 4 is of a revision history of CAD data "A10". In this way, it can be seen that different CAD data are targeted in Fig. 3A and Fig. 4.

[0041] Moreover, in part name 301 in Fig. 3A, "cover 1", "flange", and "casing" are recorded as parts where design rule violations have occurred. Moreover, in part name 401 in Fig. 4, "cover 1", "flange", and "casing" are recorded as parts where design rule violations have occurred. Note that although the contents of part names are common between Fig. 3A and Fig. 4, they may not be common between each correction log data 103.

[0042] In addition, in design rule name 302 in Fig. 3A, "X0001", "X0002", and "X0003" are recorded as the design rules used in the design rule violation. Similarly, in design rule name 402 in Fig. 4, "X0001", "X0002", and "X0003" are recorded. Note that, like the part names, the design rule names are not limited to being common.

[0043] 3A, the feature name where the design rule violation occurred and the name of the characteristic shape are recorded as "vertical wall 10", "vertical wall 20", "hole diameter 10", "hole diameter 20", "fillet R10", and "fillet R20". Similarly, the shape name 403 in FIG. 4 records the same content as the shape name 303, but these do not have to be the same content.

[0044] Moreover, in the modification order 304 in FIG. 3A and the modification order in FIG. 4, the order of modification steps when modifications were made based on the CAD operation history, log data, etc. is recorded.

[0045] 3A and the correction order 404 in Fig. 4 record the period required for correction in the correction process based on the date and time of correction from the CAD operation history, log data, etc. Note that the correction periods 305 and 405 may be calculated from the CAD operation history, the presence or absence of feature generation, the timestamp of the file storage date and time, and other log data.

[0046] Finally, for the correction amount 306 in Fig. 3A and the correction amount 406 in Fig. 4, the number of operations is recorded from the CAD operation history, the presence or absence of feature generation, and other log data. Also, the shape before and after the correction may be compared, and a quantitative correction amount may be determined based on the results of a geometric comparison on the CAD, such as a volume change or area change at the time of the correction. Note that the correction amount 306 and the correction amount 406 may be absolute amounts, or may be relative amounts indicating a relative relationship with other corrections. As this relative amount, the order of the amounts may be used.

[0047] Next, another aspect of the correction log data 103 will be described. FIG. 3B is a diagram showing correction log data 103 created for each part, that is, for each part name 301. The items are almost the same as those in FIG. 3A, but the part name 301 is omitted. The information for each part is as follows. (a) is the correction log data for the cover 1, (b) the flange, and (c) the housing, and each correction period 305 and correction amount 306 are recorded. The total value of each correction period 305 and correction amount 306 is recorded in (d). This concludes the explanation of the correction log data 103, and we will return to the explanation of the flowchart in FIG. 6.

[0048] Next, in step S602, the data analysis unit 104 searches the read correction log data 103 using the CAD data of the design object as a search key. More specifically, the data analysis unit 104 searches for correction log data of a design object having a shape similar to that of the design object. For this purpose, it is desirable to compare the shape name 303 of the design object with that of the correction log data 103. Also, similarity may be determined based on factors other than shape. In this case, the similarity can be evaluated by partial shape recognition using, for example, a similar partial shape search technique (Onodera et al., Development of mesh generation technique reusing proven analysis models by similar sub-part search, JSME Vol. 83, No. 853, 2017). Note that similarity in each embodiment includes being the same. In this embodiment, similarity is used, but other relationships may be used to search for correction log data corresponding to a design rule violation.

[0049] Next, in step S603, the data analysis unit 104 narrows down the search results in step S602 to correction log data that includes the shape names that violate the design rules. Note that this step may be omitted, and the search results in step S602 may be used later.

[0050] Next, in step S604, the data analysis unit 104 identifies correction log data requiring less effort in the correction process from among the narrowed-down correction log data. Then, the data analysis unit 104 acquires the correction order of the identified correction log data. Here, less effort in the correction process means a shorter correction period and a smaller amount of correction. For example, among the narrowed-down correction log data, the correction log data has the shortest and smallest correction period and amount of correction. However, the correction log data with the shortest correction period and the correction log data with the smallest amount of correction do not necessarily match. Therefore, it is preferable that the data analysis unit 104 converts the correction period and the correction amount into a common index and integrates (for example, sums) these to identify the correction log data requiring the least effort in the correction process. Note that the common index, the correction period, and the correction amount themselves are examples of correction parameters of the present invention.

[0051] As described above, in this step, for example, from the narrowed-down correction log data, the correction order of the data with the smallest correction period and amount is obtained. Based on the obtained correction order, the correction order is specified for each violation part.

[0052] Here, the details of the specification of the correction log data in step S604, including the concept thereof, will be described. When checking the shape name 303 and the correction order 304 in the correction log data 103 shown in Fig. 3A, "fillet R" is corrected in the order of "fillet R01" and "fillet R02", and then "vertical wall 01" is corrected for the vertical wall. Next, "hole diameter 01" and "hole diameter 02" are corrected for the hole diameter, and finally "fillet R" is corrected in the order of "fillet R01" and "fillet R02".

[0053] In FIG. 3A, the revision period 305 is 1.5 days in total, and the revision amount 306 counted as the number of operations is 21 times in total.

[0054] On the other hand, when checking the shape name 403 and the modification order 404 in the modification log data 103 in Fig. 4, the vertical walls were modified first in the order of "vertical wall 01" and "vertical wall 02", then the hole diameters were modified in the order of "hole diameter 10" and "hole diameter 20". And finally the fillet R was modified in the order of "fillet R10", "fillet R20", and "fillet R30". The modification period 405 was a total of 0.75 days, and the modification amount 406, which is also counted as the number of operations, was 15 times.

[0055] Comparing these two pieces of correction log data 103, although there are slight differences in the contents of the corrected shape names 303, 403, the total number of design violation rules is the same at seven places (number of records). However, the CAD name "A10" in FIG. 4 has a shorter correction period and a smaller amount of correction. The difference between these two pieces of correction log data 103 is due to the difference in the correction orders 304 and 404, which are the order of correction. In this embodiment and embodiment 2, the correction order is determined by utilizing the difference in "correction parameters" such as the correction orders 304 and 404.

[0056] Here, the correction process shown in the correction log data 103 in FIG. 3A will be described with reference to FIG. 5. FIG. 5 shows the correction process of "hole diameter 01" and "fillet R01" for "A01" of the CAD name 300 in FIG. 3A. FIG. 5 shows a CAD image of the correction process for each correction order 500. In correction order 1 in the figure, first, the "fillet R01" is corrected. Then, after correcting the vertical wall, which is another part, in correction order 4 in the figure, the "hole diameter 01" is corrected. Finally, in correction order 6 in the figure, the "fillet R01" is corrected again. This is because the "fillet R01" was deleted by the correction in correction order 4, and the "fillet R01" is corrected a second time for the same part.

[0057] On the other hand, in the correction process in the correction log data 103 in FIG. 4, for "A10" of the CAD name 400, first the vertical wall is corrected, then the hole diameter is corrected, and finally the fillet R is corrected. Therefore, in FIG. 4, two corrections to the fillet R (fillet R01) are not necessary, and the result shows that the correction period and the amount of correction are less than in the case of FIG. 3A. Also, in the case of FIG. 3A, there is a possibility that the deletion (invalidation) of the fillet R may be overlooked during the work of correcting multiple design rule violations. From the above, it can be seen from the past correction log data 103 that the correction of the minimum fillet R should be performed collectively on the later process side. In this way, the effort of the correction process changes depending on the correction log data used. Therefore, in this step, this identification can be used to identify correction log data that requires less effort in the correction process, and the correction order of the identified correction log data can be obtained.

[0058] Next, in step S609, the output unit 105 outputs the multiple design rule violations checked by the checking unit 102 based on the modification order acquired in step S604. More specifically, the output unit 105 sorts the multiple design rule violations in the order of the acquired modification order and outputs them. Note that the sorting itself may be performed by the data analysis unit 104.

[0059] Fig. 7 is an example of a violation result list screen 700 showing an example of the output contents in step S609. In Fig. 7, a correction order 701 in the figure is sorted and output in ascending order of correction period and amount of correction according to the processing flow shown in Fig. 6. Specifically, the correction order is output by utilizing each item 400-405 of the correction log data of the CAD name "A10" in Fig. 4. The shape names are output in the correction order of vertical wall, hole diameter, and fillet R in that order.

[0060] Moreover, in step S609, it is preferable that the data analysis unit 104 stores the sorted plurality of design rule violations in the database 110 as new correction log data.

[0061] This concludes the description of the first embodiment, but next, a modified version of this embodiment will be described. In the first embodiment, the correction log data 103 for the entire design object in FIG. 3A or FIG. 4 is used. In this modified version, the correction log data 103 for each part shown in FIG. 3B is used. For this reason, in this modified version, the data analysis unit 104 divides the design rule violations input in step S600 by part. Then, the data analysis unit 104 executes steps S602 and S603 for each part.

[0062] Then, in step S604, the data analysis unit 104 acquires the repair order for each part by using the repair log data 103 shown in Fig. 3B. In this case, it is preferable that the data analysis unit 104 specifies the repair order for the parts (the order of cover 1, flange, housing, etc.) and compiles the order and the repair order for each part as the repair order. This modified example can also be applied to the second embodiment.

[0063] This concludes the explanation of the first embodiment and the modified example, in which the effort required is grasped from a set of repair procedures and repairs, and a repair order that reduces the effort is obtained. Therefore, the efficiency of the entire repair process can be taken into account, and a repair order with less waste can be specified. EXAMPLES

[0064] Next, a second embodiment will be described. When the number of design rule violations in the first embodiment becomes huge, the design rule violations are scattered in multiple locations of the CAD. For this reason, it is more efficient to collectively correct those that are close to each other when starting the correction work. Therefore, in the second embodiment, those design rule violations that are close to each other are grouped. That is, the correction order is output to an output position (for example, a display position) according to the position where the design rule violation occurs. Furthermore, by grouping and visualizing the design rule violations scattered on the design object at an output position according to the position, it is possible to support the user, the designer, in efficiently correcting the design rule violations when correcting them. Hereinafter, the present embodiment will be described with a focus on the differences from the first embodiment. The configuration of the present embodiment is the same as that of the first embodiment, as shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 9. Next, the processing flow of the present embodiment will be described.

[0065] Fig. 10 is a flowchart showing a process of determining the correction order. Steps S600 to S604 in Fig. 10 are the same as those in the first embodiment, and therefore the description thereof will be omitted. However, steps S600 to S604 are not limited to those in the first embodiment, and the finishing order may be obtained by a separate process.

[0066] The following steps S605 to S609 constitute a processing flow for grouping and outputting designs with similar design rule violations, which is a feature of this embodiment. Steps S605 and after will be described below.

[0067] First, in step S605, the data analysis unit 104 judges whether to divide the data into groups and output them. For this purpose, the data analysis unit 104 may judge based on a specification from the user, or may decide in advance whether to divide the data for each design object and use this to make the judgment. As a result, if the data is to be divided into groups (Y), the process proceeds to step S606. On the other hand, if the data is not to be divided into groups (N), the process proceeds to step S609.

[0068] Next, in step S606, the data analysis unit 104 acquires the coordinates of the design violation on the CAD of the object to be designed. To this end, the data analysis unit 104 uses the CAD data 1101 to acquire the coordinates of the design violation.

[0069] Next, in step S607, the data analysis unit 104 groups design rule violations that are within the threshold for each occurrence position into the same group. To this end, the data analysis unit 104 specifies multiple reference positions on the CAD. These reference positions may be any positions, and may be set at predetermined distances or may be extracted from the occurrence position of the design rule violation.

[0070] Then, the data analysis unit 104 calculates the distance between the reference position and the position of each design data violation, and compares this with a threshold value. Using this result, the data analysis unit 104 groups design data violations that are within the threshold value range into the same group. The threshold value for determining whether they belong to the same group may be uniquely determined, or may be a variable scale depending on the CAD dimensions. Here, a threshold value is determined to be 1 / 10 of the maximum dimension on the CAD 801 to be checked, and violation parts located within the threshold value are set into the same group.

[0071] Next, in step S608, the output unit 105 groups and outputs the design rule violations in accordance with step S608. FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of a CAD operation screen on which the design rule violations are grouped and output in the second embodiment. FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a CAD operation screen 800 on which the design rule violations are grouped and output in the present embodiment.

[0072] The CAD operation screen 800 shown in FIG. 8(a) is composed of a CAD 801 to be checked and a violation result list screen 900. In FIG. 8(a), the CAD 801 to be checked is an overall view of a half-cut model of an engine cover for an automobile, and a total of seven violation sites as a result of the execution of the check can be divided into five groups AAA to DDD in the figure. As a result, since there are multiple violation sites within the threshold value for BBB and DDD, violations of design rules close to each group are registered. In this way, the output unit 105 outputs the correction order to an output position corresponding to the occurrence position of each design rule violation in the design object. At this time, it is preferable that the output unit 105 outputs the grouped correction orders.

[0073] Next, in step S609, the output unit 105 accepts an instruction from the user to change the content output in step S608, and performs output and registration in the storage unit 5 accordingly. FIG. 8(b) shows details of the violation result list screen 900. The user can change the group 901 by specifying a downward triangle of the group 901 on this screen via the input unit 16. This specification can also output the group 901 together with the correction order. Furthermore, the correction order can also be changed in the same way.

[0074] Furthermore, in step S609, the data analysis unit 104 stores the changed modification procedure in the database 110 as new modification log data 103.

[0075] The visualization of this embodiment as described above is particularly effective when there are a large number of violations or multiple design rules are being implemented.

[0076] This concludes the explanation of the first and second embodiments. According to the first embodiment, for the CAD to be checked and the design rule violations, a correction order can be extracted based on log data in which the correction order of the design rule violations, the correction period in the correction order, the amount of correction, etc. are accumulated. Therefore, it is possible to promote efficient correction work by outputting design rule violations in the order of shortest correction period and least amount of correction. Also, in the second embodiment, the design rule violations that are close to each other are grouped and output, so that scattered design rule violations can be collectively and efficiently corrected.

[0077] In addition, in each embodiment, the modification log data is used as the modification procedure, but other data may be used. In other words, it is possible to use data that specifies the modification process by some method, rather than the past history. In each embodiment, the correction period, the correction amount, and the common index are used as the correction parameters, but other indices may be used.

Claims

1. A design support device for supporting the design of a design object, a checking unit that extracts a plurality of design rule violations from the design based on the design content of the design object and predetermined design rules; Identifying fix procedures corresponding to the extracted plurality of design rule violations; a data analysis unit that determines a repair order for the plurality of design rule violations by using repair parameters indicated by the identified repair procedure, The data analysis unit acquires correction log data as past correction procedures, compares the extracted violations of the plurality of design rules with the correction log data, identifies correction log data corresponding to the violations of the plurality of design rules, and determines the correction order of the correction log data as the correction order.

2. 2. The design support apparatus according to claim 1, The data analysis unit Identify multiple remediation steps, comparing the modification parameters of the plurality of modification procedures and determining a modification procedure having modification parameters that minimizes the effort required for the modification process; The design support device determines the modification order of the determined modification procedures as the modification sequence.

3. 2. The design support apparatus according to claim 1, The data analysis unit is a design support device that identifies the correction log data corresponding to the violations of the plurality of design rules by using a similarity of a shape of the design object.

4. 2. The design support apparatus according to claim 1, The modification parameters include at least one of a modification period and a modification amount.

5. 2. The design support apparatus according to claim 1, The data analysis unit is a design support device that identifies a modification procedure for the entire design object.

6. 2. The design support apparatus according to claim 1, The data analysis unit is a design support device that identifies a modification procedure for each part constituting the design object.

7. 7. The design support apparatus according to claim 1, The design support apparatus further comprises an output unit that outputs the correction order to an output position corresponding to a position in the design object where each of the plurality of design rule violations occurs.

8. 8. The design support apparatus according to claim 7, the output unit divides the extracted plurality of design rule violations into groups based on the proximity of the occurrence positions, and groups and outputs the repair orders based on the groups to an output position corresponding to the occurrence positions.

9. A design support method executed by a design support apparatus for supporting design of a design object, comprising: a checking unit extracting a plurality of design rule violations from the design based on the design content of the design object and predetermined design rules; a data analysis unit identifies repair procedures corresponding to the extracted plurality of design rule violations, and determines a repair order for the plurality of design rule violations using repair parameters indicated by the identified repair procedures; the data analysis unit, in determining the modification order, acquires modification log data as past modification procedures, compares the extracted violations of the plurality of design rules with the modification log data, identifies modification log data corresponding to the violations of the plurality of design rules, and determines the modification order of the modification log data as the modification order.

Images