JP3799063B2 - Product processability evaluation system - Google Patents

Description

【００４１】
として予め決めてある。但し、ａ₁，ａ₂は定数でａ₂＝ａ₁Ｃ_X0の関係を有する。
【００４２】
この実施例と異なる実施例として、前記の加工費用Ｃ_Xの代りに加工時間Ｔ_Xやこれらの指数Ｉ_Xをとることもできる。
【００４３】
更に、基本減点εＸの式はＣ_Xの増加に対して、ε_Xの増加・減少傾向が異なる下式等がある。
【００４４】
【数２】

【００４５】
【数３】

【００４６】
【数４】

【００４７】
又、基本減点ε_Xの代りに基本係数ε_Xを取り、所定値（例：１）より大きく、または小さくなる次式等を使用しても良い。
【００４８】
【数５】

【００４９】
【数６】

【００５０】
但し、ａ₃，ｂ₂，ｂ₃，ｃ₁，ｃ₂，ｄ₁，ｄ₂，α，βは定数である。
【００５１】
これらの定数を適宜選択することによって、基本要素の費用又は所要時間の増加に対する基本指標の増加、減少の傾向を変えることができる。
【００５２】
図３には補正要素ｘの例を示す。補正要素ｘとしては部品の材質ｍ、大きさｌ、仕上精度ａ等が挙げられ、又、この他にもいくつも考えられる。
【００５３】
これらの各補正要素（ｍ，ｌ，ａ…）について、比較的簡単なものを選択してそれぞれ補正基準（ｍ₀，ｌ₀，ａ₀…）を定義し、各補正要素の状態を１個又は複数のｎ個に区分し、これらは図面に表わされている情報や製品、部品から抽出して指定可能なもので、基本要素以外に部品の加工し易さに影響を及ぼす項目である。その影響度を表わす補正指標として補正係数が予め記載してある。この補正要素（ｘ）は、生産環境条件を揃えたときに、ｎ個に区分された各状態の加工費用（Ｃ_Xxn）が補正基準の加工費（Ｃ_Xxn＝Ｃ_Xとする）よりも大きくなるにつれてその補正係数α_nが１より比例して大きくなるような関数関係

として決めてある。
【００５４】
この実施例ではＣ_Xx0＝Ｃ_Xとしたが、その他
Ｃ_Xxn＝Ｃ_Xや
〔Ｃ_Xxn〕ｘ_{n mean}＝Ｃ_Xとしたり、
更に加工費用Ｃ_Xxn、Ｃ_Xx0の代わりに加工時間Ｔ_Xxn、Ｔ_Xx0やこれらの指数Ｉ_Xxn、Ｉ_Xx0をとることも出来る。
【００５５】
このようにして、最終的には部品の加工性を表わす部品加工性評点Ｅ_iを求めるのであるが、その詳細については以下に述べる。
【００５６】
まず、部品ｉの部品基準ｂは、部品ｉの加工面を表わす基本要素を１個の基準要素Ｘ₀とし、補正要素を所定の大きさｌ_bとし、生産環境条件は部品ｉと同にする。その加工費用Ｃ_biを図３から求める。
【００５７】
次に、部品ｉの加工順ｊごとの基本要素Ｘ_ijと補正要素ｘ_nijに対応した加工費用Ｃ_Xxnijを図３から求める。
【００５８】
以下、Ｃ_XxnijをＣ_ijと略称する。
【００５９】
ここでＣ_ijをｊの順に加えたΣＣ_ijは部品加工費用Ｃ_iとなる。
【００６０】
すなわち、Ｃ_i＝ΣＣ_ij
この部品加工費用Ｃ_iが部品基準の加工費用Ｃ_biよりも増加すると、該部品の部品加工性評点Ｅ_iを所定値（１００）から減少または増加する関数式

で算出する。
【００６１】
ただし ｅ_i＝ｇ₁（Ｃ_i）は、Ｃ_iがＣ_biよりも増加すると増加する部品減点である。ここで、ｅ_iの式に先に決めた

となる。ただし、
Ｃ_Xｘ_n／Ｃ_X≒（Ｃ_Xxn／Ｃ_X）_{X mean}＝α_n
とし、ｆ₁~¹はｆ₁の逆関数である。
【００６２】
これにより、Ｅ_i＝１００±ｇ₂（α_nij、ε_Xij）となり、この式を使用すると、基本要素Ｘ_ijと補正要素ｘ_nijに対応した基本減点ε_Xijと補正係数α_nijでＥ_iが算出できる。
【００６３】
更に、Ｅ_i＝１００±ｇ₂（α_nij、ε_Xij）から求めたＥ_iをＥ_i＝ｆ₂（Ｃ_i）のＥ_iに代入すればＣ_iが求まる。
【００６４】
この事は図２、図３のＣ_X、Ｃ_Xxn等のデータが無記入の簡単な図でＥ_i、Ｃ_iが算出できるので便利である。
【００６５】
以上の加工費用Ｃ_bi、Ｃ_Xxnijの代りに加工時間Ｔ_bi、Ｔ_Xxnijやこれらの指数Ｉ_bi、Ｉ_Xxnijとすることもできる。更に、部品減点ｅ_iの代りに部品係数ｅ_i′を取り、部品加工性評点Ｅ_iをＥ_i＝１００ｅ_i′とすることもできる。但し、ｅ_i′＝ｇ₂′（Ｃ_i）はＣ_iがＣ_biよりも増加すると増減する部品係数である。
【００６６】
さて、このようにして全部品について部品加工性評点Ｅ_i、加工費用Ｃ_iを求め、次に、これらの値から製品のＣ、Ｅを求める。
【００６７】
即ち、Ｃ＝ΣＣ_iがΣＣ_biよりも増加すると製品加工性評点Ｅを所定値１００から減少または増加させる関数式
Ｅ＝１００±ｅ＝１００±ｇ₃（Ｃ）＝ｆ₃（Ｃ）
で算出する。
【００６８】
ただし、但し、ｅ＝ｇ₃（Ｃ）は、Ｃ＝ΣＣ_iがΣＣ_biよりも増加すると増加する製品減点である。
【００６９】
ここでＥの式に、先に求めたＥ_i＝ｆ₂（Ｃ_i）を代入すると
Ｅ＝ｆ₃（Ｃ）＝ｆ₃（ΣＣ_i）
＝ｆ₃｛Σ〔ｆ₂~¹（Ｅ_i）〕｝＝ｆ₄（Ｅ_i）
となる。ただしｆ₂~¹はｆ₂の逆関数である。
【００７０】
上記の加工費用Ｃ，Ｃ_i，Ｃ_biの代りに加工時間Ｔ，Ｔ_i，Ｔ_biやこれらの指数Ｉ，Ｉ_i，Ｉ_biをとることもできる。更に、製品減点ｅの代りに製品係数ｅ′を取り、Ｅ＝１００ｅ′とする事も出来る。但し、ｅ′＝ｇ₃′（Ｃ）はＣがΣＣ_biより増加すると増減する製品係数である。
【００７１】
こうすれば、Ｅ_iは部品ｉがどの程度加工し易いかを示す指標であったのに対して、製品加工性評点Ｅは製品全体がどれ位加工し易いかを表わす指標となる。
【００７２】
ここでｆ₄（Ｅ_i）の近似式は（ΣＥ_i）／Ｎとなる（導出方法は省略する）ので、
【００７３】
【数７】

【００７４】
として近似値を求めても良い。ただし、Ｎは加工部品数である。
【００７５】
そして、評価対象である製品、部品の加工費用Ｃ、Ｃ_iや加工所要時間Ｔ、Ｔ_iの算定を行う場合、上記の製品、部品と類似する既存の製品、部品の加工費用Ｃ′、Ｃ_i′や加工所要時間Ｔ′、Ｔ_i′の実績値が既知の時は、評価対象である製品、部品の加工性評点Ｅ、Ｅｉおよび類似する既存の製品、部品の加工性評点Ｅ′、Ｅ_i′とＣ、Ｃ_i、Ｃ′、Ｃ_i′の関係式を下記の如く変形する。
【００７６】
【数８】

【００７７】
上記のＣ_i、Ｃを求める４式は先に述べた下記の関数式で必要な色々な生産環境に於ける図２、図３の加工費用Ｃ_X、Ｃ_Xxnやｆ₂~¹、ｆ₃~¹の定数値等の多数のデータが不要なので大変便利である。
【００７８】
Ｃ_i＝ΣＣ_ij……Ｃ_ij＝Ｃ_Xxnijは図３より求める。
【００７９】
Ｃ＝ΣＣ_i
Ｃ_i＝ｆ₂~¹（Ｅ_i）
Ｃ＝ｆ₃~¹（Ｅ）
以上の加工費用Ｃ、Ｃ_i、Ｃ′、Ｃ_i′の代りに加工時間Ｔ、Ｔ_i、Ｔ′、Ｔ_i′やこれらの指数Ｉ、Ｉ_i、Ｉ′、Ｉ_i′を取る事も出来る。
【００８０】
図４にコンピュータシステムによる操作を示す。
【００８１】
ステップ１では「評価対象部品を基本要素および補正要素の記号で表現する」。ピッタリあてはまる記号が無い場合には、最も似た基本要素の記号を選択する。
【００８２】
同図のステップ２では部品ごとの基本要素および補正要素の記号をコンピュータ入力する。
【００８３】
以上の操作を製品を構成するすべての部品について行えば、コンピュータは部品ごとおよび製品の加工性評点および加工時間や加工費用のすべてもしくは一部を自動で計算し、結果を表示部に表示するとともに必要に応じ、結果をプリンタに打ち出す。
【００８４】
入力データとして部品毎に基本要素、および補正要素を入力するが、入力のしかたとしてキーボードの各キーに基本要素および補正要素の記号を割り当てておく。図５（ａ）、（ｂ）にキーボードの例を示す。この場合、図２にて示したような記号と割り当てるキーの文字が連想しやすい関係のものであれば便利であって、アルファベットの文字を使用する基本要素はそのままキーボードの該当するキーを割り当ててあり、アルファベッド以外の記号を使用する基本要素はファンクションキーを割り当てておくと、操作し易い。キーボードにオーバーレイシートと呼ぶシートを重ね合わせておき、各キーの近傍のシート上に該当する記号を表記しておき、そのキーが表わす要素記号を表示することも便利な方法である。
【００８５】
本実施例においては、基本要素「Ｐ」を、図５（ａ）に示したグループＰ_bのキーに割り当て、アルファベッド以外の記号はファンクションキーのグループＦｎに割り当てた。この他、キーボードを用いず、ディスプレイ両面上に要素記号の一覧表を作っておき、カーソルを移動させて所望の要素記号を選定し、入力する方法等、いろいろな方法が考えられるが、どの方法によっても構わない。尚、数値データはキーボードのテンキーを用いて入力すると良い。
【００８６】
図６は、入力データを図４のコンピュータシステムで処理した出力の例である。
【００８７】
図７は本実施例によって種々の部品の加工性評価を行った結果を示す図である。また、製品の加工性評価値の実際値からの誤差は±１０％以内に納まっている。 以上述べた実施例では基準点を１００点とし、減点法で加工性評点を算出したが、種々のバリエーションが可能である。例えば基準点を０点とし、減点法で加工性評点を算出する方法、基準点を０点とし、加点法で加工性評点を算出する方法、基準点を１００点とし、加点法で加工性評点を算出する方法等が考えられれるが、最初に説明した手法と本質的には変わらない。
【００８８】
次に本発明の加工性評価法で評価、改良した例を図８に示す。
【００８９】
以上は物品に製品、作業種に加工作業、状態に加工面を取った加工性評価法として、加工性（加工作業の容易性）を評価する実施例である。が、作業種に組立作業、状態に組付動作を取った組立性評価法として、組立性（組立作業の容易性）を評価する事が出来る。この場合の基本要素等を図９から図１３に示す。
【００９０】
本発明は、作業種として製造作業、検査作業、輸送作業、販売作業、据付作業、使用、保守作業等に適用すれば製造性、検査性、輸送性、販売性、据付性、使用性（使い勝手性、操作性）、保守性等を、本実施例と同様な手順を取ることにより効果的に評価する事が出来る。
【００９１】
【発明の効果】
以上述べたように、本発明によれば物品または部品の作業し易さが
(a) 設計開発の早い段階で、
(b) 豊富な経験を必要とせず容易に、かつ
(c) 作業費用や時間だけで無く、設計構造の良し悪しが定量的に、誰にもわかり易いかたちで評価が行える。従って、設計自身が設計開発の早い段階で、自分の設計を評価、改良することができ、作業し易さの観点から質の良い設計を短時間に得ることが出来る。
【図面の簡単な説明】
【図１】本発明に係る評価方法の一実施例を用いたコンピュータシステムの構成を示す説明図である。
【図２】加工作業における基本要素とその内容等の例を示す図である。
【図３】加工作業における補正要素とその内容等の例を示す図である。
【図４】加工性評価プロセスの内容を示すフロー図である。
【図５】コンピュータシステムのキーボードの形状例を示す平面図である。
【図６】加工性評価結果の出力の例を示す平面図である。
【図７】加工性評価法による加工時間算出の精度検証結果を示す図である。
【図８】加工性評価法による設計改良の例を示す図である。
【図９】組立作業における基本要素とその内容等の例を示す図である。
【図１０】組立作業における補正要素とその内容等の例を示す図である。
【図１１】組立性評価結果の出力の例を示す平面図である。
【図１２】組立性評価法による組立費算出の精度検証結果を示す図である。
【図１３】組立性評価法による設計改良の例を示す図である。
【図１４】従来の設計と製造し易さの評価、設計改良の流れを示すフロー図である。
【符号の説明】
１．演算装置、
２．記憶装置、
３．表示装置、
４．キーボード、
５．プリンタ、
１０．基本要素の例：平面、
１１．基本要素の例：円筒面、
１２．基本要素の例：丸穴面。[0001]
[Industrial application fields]
The present invention relates to a method for quantitatively evaluating whether or not the structure is easy to work in order to improve product productivity or reduce costs, and an apparatus for performing the evaluation.
[0002]
[Prior art]
Conventionally, there are roughly three methods for evaluating whether or not an article has an easily workable structure.
[0003]
The first method is called design review at the time of design. Experts for each work such as design, manufacture, and inspection determine the ease of work of the article from the design drawing based on experience, and the improvement section is required. It is something to point out.
[0004]
In the second method, the production engineering department etc. performs process planning based on the design drawing, calculates the estimated cost and time of each work, and the designer, production engineer, etc. judge the quality of the structure based on this value It is a method to do.
[0005]
The third method is a method implemented by an assemblability evaluation method or a workability evaluation method when assembly or processing is handled as a work type.
[0006]
In other words, the scoring determined by the sensory judgment of the engineer for the evaluation items (for example, check items, operations, operations, and shapes) of assembling property (easyness of assembling work) and workability (easyness of working work) Based on evaluation criteria such as grades and deductions determined based on economics and standards, for example, scores and indices, etc., out of 100 points are obtained, and designers, production engineers, etc. judge whether the structure is good or bad based on these obtained values It is a method to do. Examples of this kind of evaluation method include JP-A-61-59900 and JP-A-63-177598.
[0007]
[Problems to be solved by the invention]
The method (design review) according to the first known technique is qualitative, and expresses objectively and quantitatively how good or bad the structure of the evaluation target product is or how much the effect is improved when it is improved. There is a drawback that it is difficult. Furthermore, it is a disadvantage that only those who have sufficient experience in design and work can perform it.
[0008]
The method according to the second known technique (depending on the estimated cost and time of work) can be used to estimate the work cost and time of the whole article, each part, or a part of the part, but only from the value, the design structure It is difficult to determine whether or not improvement is necessary or not. Moreover, experience and knowledge and considerable calculation time are required for evaluation, and it cannot be easily performed. Furthermore, since it is difficult to evaluate if the design of the article is not completed, even if it is found that the design improvement is necessary, once the design is completed, the change takes a lot of time, as shown in FIG. Inadequately designed products were transferred to production without design improvements, and productivity and cost reduction were often not realized.
[0009]
In addition, the method according to the third known technique (using a score, index, etc.) can be evaluated without much experience, and the evaluation time can be short. ) Is based on the points determined by the engineer's sensory judgment, so the relationship between work costs and time is unclear, or the criteria for associating evaluation ratings with work costs and time Although there is a summary display, there is a problem that it is difficult to understand the method and effectiveness because a specific calculation method is not clearly described.
[0010]
Combining the above problems, the conventional technology
(1) Evaluation is qualitative and not quantitative.
[0011]
(2) Only an experienced person can evaluate.
[0012]
(3) It is difficult to judge whether the design is good or bad only with the work cost and time.
[0013]
(4) It takes time to evaluate.
[0014]
(5) The design cannot be evaluated unless the design is completed or close to the end, and it is difficult to improve the design after the judgment.
[0015]
(6) The relationship between evaluation indicators and work costs and time is unclear.
[0016]
(7) The calculation method of the evaluation index is unclear.
[0017]
It turns out that.
[0018]
The purpose of the present invention is to evaluate these problems free, i.e.
(1) Quantitative evaluation,
(2) Does not require extensive experience and
(3) Not only the work cost and time, but also the design structure can be easily evaluated by anyone.
(4) Evaluate easily.
[0019]
(5) It can be done easily at an early stage of design and development.
[0020]
(6) The relationship between the evaluation index and work cost and time is clear.
(7) The calculation method of the evaluation index is clear.
[0021]
An object of the present invention is to provide such an evaluation method and an apparatus for automatically performing the evaluation.
[0022]
[Means for Solving the Problems]
In order to achieve the above object, the product easiness evaluation apparatus for products of the present invention comprises :
Data defining a basic element X that classifies a machining surface constituting a part or a machining method applied to the part, a symbol for identifying each basic element X corresponding to each basic element X, and a plurality of data A basic deduction that is an index of ease of processing calculated by comparing the processing cost or processing time of a reference element selected from one of the basic elements with the processing cost or processing time of each basic element At least a basic element data table as a configuration item, data defining correction elements x that classify at least the material, size, and finishing accuracy of the part, and the state of each correction element x corresponding to each correction element x And a symbol for identifying these divisions, and a processing cost or processing time of a correction standard selected from the plurality of divisions corresponding to each correction element x, , The amendment Storage means for storing a correction factor data table having at least a correction coefficient as an index that affects the ease of processing calculated by comparing the processing cost or processing time of other sections of the element x And input means for inputting basic elements and correction element symbols representing each part constituting the product to be evaluated, and searching the basic element data table and the correction element data table based on the input symbols. The corresponding basic deduction points and correction coefficients are read out, the read basic deduction points are corrected with the correction coefficients to calculate the component deduction points e i or the component coefficients e i ′, and the component deduction points e i or the component coefficients e i Based on the calculation means for calculating the part workability score Ei and the product workability score E, the calculated part workability score Ei and the product workability score E And display means for displaying.
Further, in the product processability evaluation apparatus according to the present invention, the calculation means further includes the part processability score Ei and the product processability score E, and an existing similar part or an existing similar product part processability score Ei. Based on 'or product processability score E' and information on the processing cost or processing time of an existing similar part or existing similar product, an estimate of the processing cost or processing time of the product or part to be evaluated is calculated The display means further displays the estimated processing cost or the required processing time of the product or part to be evaluated .
Further, in the product processability evaluation apparatus according to the present invention, the display means includes the existing similar part or the existing similar product part processability score Ei ′ or the product processability score E ′, and the existing similar part. Or, display the processing cost or processing time of existing similar products .
[0029]
[Action]
According to the evaluation device according to the invention, ease of processing intended for machining types or more machining types of products or components, as processability index around the base indicating based on the machining cost or machining time required Represented.
[0030]
The above basic elements can be easily extracted from the description contents of the design drawings, articles, and parts without requiring special skill, research, or experiment.
[0031]
Then, the above basic indicators can be tabulated by a simple calculation (for example, a deduction method or an addition method), or an average value can be obtained, and the processability of the part to be evaluated can be represented by the indicators.
[0032]
If the basic index is corrected with the correction index, a more precise evaluation is possible.
[0033]
In addition, by applying the above evaluation method to a product that is an assembly of parts, it is possible to evaluate processability as a whole product .
[0034]
Further, according to the apparatus according to the invention, product and part data (basic elements, correction elements, etc.) can be input by an input device, the index is stored by a storage device, a function formula, etc. Can be stored, calculating the processing difficulty level as a part by the arithmetic unit, and calculating the processing difficulty level of the entire product based on the processing difficulty level of the part, Since the calculation result can be displayed by the display device, it is suitable for carrying out the inventive method.
[0035]
【Example】
Hereinafter, as an example of the present invention, an example of a computer system equipped with the evaluation method program is used to describe a workability evaluation method in which a product is applied to an article, a processing operation is applied to a work type, and a processing surface is applied to a state. This will be described with reference to FIG. The hardware configuration of this computer system is general. That is, the computer system includes an arithmetic device 1 that performs a calculation operation, a storage device 2 that stores programs and basic data, input data and arithmetic results, a display device 3 and a printer 5 that display input data and arithmetic results, a keyboard, It consists of a data input device 4 such as a mouse and others.
[0036]
The configuration of software installed in this hardware is as follows. First, as basic data to be stored in the storage device, the basic element X described with reference to FIG. 2, the basic deduction ε _X as a basic index, the name, symbol, numerical value, etc. given thereto, and FIG. 3 are used. Correction elements x and x _n and correction coefficient α as a correction index, and names, symbols, numerical values, and the like given thereto, and each process of the evaluation process described with reference to FIG. data X _ij for each processing surface of the processing order j, the input processing such as x _nij, calculation of the basic deduction epsilon _Xij corresponding to the input data is corrected by the correction coefficient alpha _nij component deduction e _i, the component deduction e _i Calculation of part workability score E _i = 100−e _i as part workability index, calculation of product workability score E as product workability index using all part workability scores E _i , product processing cost Calculation of C or machining time T, etc., and their results Are displayed on the display unit and the result is output by the printer.
[0037]
The third column of FIG. 2 shows an example of the contents of the basic element X that classifies the machining surface. The first example 10 is a plane, the second example 11 is a cylindrical surface, and the third example 12 is a round hole surface. Although the following is omitted, these basic elements X can be extracted from the information, products, and parts defined in the design drawing with a predetermined machining surface defined, and the shape of the surface is changed to the basic element X as in this example. It is also possible to take the processing method such as cutting, casting or the like for the basic element X, or to combine the both into the basic element X.
[0038]
In the first column of FIG. 2, the name of the basic element X is described. The number of basic elements X can be many. Although the accuracy of evaluation increases as the number of basic elements increases, it becomes difficult to use. Conversely, the smaller the number, the easier the evaluation process but the worse the accuracy. In the case of assembling as well as processing, in practice, around 20 is best.
[0039]
In the second column of the figure, symbols corresponding to the basic elements X are described. Here, in order to easily associate the corresponding basic element X with the symbol, it is determined, for example, as “P” on a plane or “C” on a cylindrical surface (Cylinder). In the fourth column of FIG. 2, an example of the value of the basic deduction point ε _X assigned to each basic element X is described. In the present embodiment, the plane P that is most easily machined is “reference element X ₀ ”, and the reference deduction point ε _X0 (value when _X of the basic deduction point ε _X is set to X ₀ ) as the reference index A given _thereto is 0. As the other basic elements X become harder to process than the “reference element X ₀ ”, in other words, “conditions such as the number of production and production means, for example, the type of processing machine to be used, that is, production environment conditions are aligned. fifth as machining cost C _X of each basic element X as shown in the column is greater than the machining cost C _X0 reference element X ₀ "the basic deduction epsilon _X becomes large such functional relationship than 0 when the [0040]
[Expression 1]

[0041]
As previously determined. However, a ₁ and a ₂ are constants and have a relationship of a ₂ = a ₁ C _X0 .
[0042]
As an embodiment different from this embodiment, the processing time T _X and the index I _X can be taken instead of the processing cost C _X described above.
[0043]
Furthermore, the basic deduction point εX includes the following equation in which the increase / decrease tendency of ε _X differs with respect to the increase of C _X.
[0044]
[Expression 2]

[0045]
[Equation 3]

[0046]
[Expression 4]

[0047]
Further, instead of the basic deduction point ε _X , the basic coefficient ε _X may be taken, and the following equation or the like that is larger or smaller than a predetermined value (eg, 1) may be used.
[0048]
[Equation 5]

[0049]
[Formula 6]

[0050]
However, a ₃ , b ₂ , b ₃ , c ₁ , c ₂ , d ₁ , d ₂ , α, β are constants.
[0051]
By appropriately selecting these constants, it is possible to change the tendency of the basic index to increase or decrease with respect to the increase in the cost of the basic element or the required time.
[0052]
FIG. 3 shows an example of the correction element x. Examples of the correction element x include the material m of the part, the size l, the finishing accuracy a, and the like.
[0053]
For each of these correction elements (m, l, a...), A relatively simple one is selected to define a correction reference (m ₀ , l ₀ , a ₀ ...), And one correction element state is set. Or, it can be divided into a plurality of n items, which can be specified by extracting from the information, products, and parts shown in the drawings. . A correction coefficient is described in advance as a correction index representing the degree of influence. This correction factor (x) is such that when the production environment conditions are aligned, the machining costs (C _Xxn ) in each of the n states are larger than the correction standard machining costs (C _Xxn = C _X ). The functional relationship that the correction coefficient α _n increases in proportion to 1

It is decided as.
[0054]
In this embodiment, C _Xx0 = C _X , but other C _Xxn = C _X and [C _Xxn ] x _{n mean} = C _X ,
Further, instead of the processing costs C _Xxn and C _Xx0 , the processing times T _Xxn and T _Xx0 and their indexes I _Xxn and I _Xx0 can be taken.
[0055]
In this way, the part workability score E _i representing the workability of the part is finally obtained, and details thereof will be described below.
[0056]
First, the component reference b in component i, the basic elements that represent the processed surface of the component i as one of the reference elements X _0, the correction elements with a predetermined size l _b, producing environmental conditions to component i and the . The processing cost C _bi is obtained from FIG.
[0057]
Next, the machining cost C _Xxnij corresponding to the basic element X _ij and the correction element x _nij for each machining order j of the part i is _obtained from FIG.
[0058]
Hereinafter, C _Xxnij is abbreviated as C _ij .
[0059]
Here, ΣC _{ij obtained} by adding C _ij in the order of j becomes the part processing cost C _i .
[0060]
That is, C _i = ΣC _ij
When this part processing cost C _i increases above the part-based processing cost C _bi , the functional formula that decreases or increases the part processability score E _{i of the part} from a predetermined value (100).

Calculate with
[0061]
However, e _i = g ₁ (C _i ) is a component deduction that increases as C _i increases from C _bi . Here, previously determined the expression of e _i

It becomes. However,
C _{X xn} / C _X ≈ (C _Xxn / C _X ) _{X mean} = α _n
F ₁ to ¹ are inverse functions of f ₁ .
[0062]
As a result, E _i = 100 ± g ₂ (α _nij , ε _Xij ). Using this equation, E _i is obtained from the basic deduction point ε _Xij corresponding to the basic element X _ij and the correction element x _nij and the correction coefficient α _nij. It can be calculated.
[0063]
Further, C _i can be obtained by substituting E _i obtained from E _i = 100 ± g ₂ (α _nij , ε _Xij ) into E _i of E _i = f ₂ (C _i ).
[0064]
This is convenient because E _i and C _i can be calculated by a simple diagram in which data such as C _X and C _Xxn in FIGS.
[0065]
In place of the above processing costs C _bi and C _Xxnij , the processing times T _bi and T _Xxnij and their indices I _bi and I _Xxnij can be used. Further, instead of the component deduction e _i 'takes the part processability score E _i E _i = 100e _i' component coefficient e _i can be a. However, e _i ′ = g ₂ ′ (C _i ) is a component coefficient that increases and decreases as C _i increases from C _bi .
[0066]
Now, the part workability score E _i and the processing cost C _i are obtained for all parts in this way, and then C and E of the product are obtained from these values.
[0067]
That is, when C = ΣC _i increases from ΣC _bi, a functional expression E = 100 ± e = 100 ± g ₃ (C) = f ₃ (C) that decreases or increases the product processability score E from the predetermined value 100
Calculate with
[0068]
However, e = g ₃ (C) is a product deduction point that increases when C = ΣC _i increases from ΣC _bi .
[0069]
Here, if E _i = f ₂ (C _i ) obtained previously is substituted into the equation of E, E = f ₃ (C) = f ₃ (ΣC _i )
= F ₃ {Σ [f ₂ to ¹ (E _i )]} = f ₄ (E _i )
It becomes. However, f ₂ to ¹ are inverse functions of f ₂ .
[0070]
Instead of the above processing costs C, C _i , C _bi , processing times T, T _i , T _bi and their indices I, I _i , I _bi can be taken. Further, instead of the product deduction point e, a product coefficient e ′ can be taken and E = 100e ′. However, e ′ = g ₃ ′ (C) is a product coefficient that increases and decreases as C increases from ΣC _bi .
[0071]
In this way, E _i is an index indicating how easy the part i can be processed, whereas the product processability score E is an index indicating how easy the entire product can be processed.
[0072]
Here, the approximate expression of f ₄ (E _i ) is (ΣE _i ) / N (the derivation method is omitted).
[0073]
[Expression 7]

[0074]
An approximate value may be obtained as However, N is the number of processed parts.
[0075]
Then, when calculating the processing costs C and C _i of the products and parts to be evaluated and the required processing times T and T _i , the processing costs C ′ and C of the existing products and parts similar to the above products and parts are calculated. _When the actual values of _i ′ and the required processing times T ′ and T _i ′ are known, the product to be evaluated, the workability score E of the part, Ei and similar existing products, the workability score E ′ of the part, The relational expression between E _i ′ and C, C _i , C ′, C _i ′ is modified as follows.
[0076]
[Equation 8]

[0077]
The above four formulas for determining C _i and C are the processing costs C _X , C _Xxn , f ₂ to ¹ , f _{3 in} FIG. 2 and FIG. ~ It is very convenient because a lot of data such as constant value of ¹ is unnecessary.
[0078]
C _i = ΣC _ij ... C _ij = C _Xxnij is _obtained from FIG.
[0079]
C = ΣC _i
C _i = f ₂ to ¹ (E _i )
C = f ₃ ~ ¹ (E)
In place of the above processing costs C, C _i , C ′, C _i ′, the processing times T, T _i , T ′, T _i ′ and their indices I, I _i , I ′, I _i ′ may be taken. I can do it.
[0080]
FIG. 4 shows the operation by the computer system.
[0081]
In step 1, “evaluation target parts are expressed by basic element and correction element symbols”. When there is no symbol that fits perfectly, the symbol of the most similar basic element is selected.
[0082]
In step 2 of the figure, the basic element and correction element symbols for each part are inputted by computer.
[0083]
If the above operations are performed for all the parts that make up the product, the computer automatically calculates all or part of the processability score, processing time, and processing cost for each part and product, and displays the results on the display. If necessary, print the results to the printer.
[0084]
Basic elements and correction elements are input for each part as input data. As input methods, symbols of the basic elements and correction elements are assigned to the keys of the keyboard. An example of a keyboard is shown in FIGS. In this case, it is convenient if the symbol and the assigned key character as shown in FIG. 2 are easily associated with each other, and the basic element using the alphabetic character is assigned the corresponding key on the keyboard as it is. Yes, basic elements that use symbols other than Alphabed are easy to operate if function keys are assigned. It is also a convenient method to overlay a sheet called an overlay sheet on the keyboard, display the corresponding symbol on a sheet near each key, and display the element symbol represented by that key.
[0085]
In the present embodiment, the basic elements "P", assigned to the keys of the group P _b shown in FIG. 5 (a), the symbols other than the alphabet are assigned to a group of function keys Fn. There are various other methods such as creating a list of element symbols on both sides of the display without using a keyboard, selecting the desired element symbol by moving the cursor, and entering it. It does not matter. Numerical data may be input using a numeric keypad on the keyboard.
[0086]
FIG. 6 is an example of output obtained by processing input data by the computer system of FIG.
[0087]
FIG. 7 is a diagram showing the results of evaluating the workability of various parts according to this example. Further, the error from the actual value of the workability evaluation value of the product is within ± 10%. In the embodiment described above, the reference point is 100 points, and the workability score is calculated by the deduction method, but various variations are possible. For example, a method for calculating the workability score by the deduction method with a reference point of 0 points, a method for calculating the workability score by using the reference point as 0 points, and a workability score by the scoring method, 100 points as the reference point, and a workability score by the scoring method Although the method etc. which calculate can be considered, it is not essentially different from the method demonstrated at the beginning.
[0088]
Next, an example evaluated and improved by the processability evaluation method of the present invention is shown in FIG.
[0089]
The above is an example in which workability (ease of work) is evaluated as a workability evaluation method in which an article is a product, a work type is a work, and a work surface is taken as a state. However, assemblability (easiness of assembling work) can be evaluated as an assembling evaluation method in which the assembling work is taken as the work type and the assembling operation is taken as the state. Basic elements in this case are shown in FIGS.
[0090]
The present invention can be applied to manufacturing work, inspection work, transportation work, sales work, installation work, use, maintenance work, etc. as work types, and it is possible to manufacture, inspect, transport, sell, installability, usability (usability) Operability, operability), maintainability, etc. can be effectively evaluated by taking the same procedure as in this embodiment.
[0091]
【The invention's effect】
As described above, according to the present invention, the ease of work of articles or parts is improved.
(a) Early in design and development,
(b) Easily without extensive experience and
(c) It is possible to evaluate not only the work cost and time but also the quality of the design structure quantitatively and in an easy-to-understand manner. Therefore, the design itself can evaluate and improve its design at an early stage of design development, and a high-quality design can be obtained in a short time from the viewpoint of ease of work.
[Brief description of the drawings]
FIG. 1 is an explanatory diagram showing a configuration of a computer system using an embodiment of an evaluation method according to the present invention.
FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of basic elements and contents thereof in a machining operation.
FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of correction elements and their contents in a machining operation.
FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing the contents of a workability evaluation process.
FIG. 5 is a plan view showing a shape example of a keyboard of a computer system.
FIG. 6 is a plan view illustrating an example of output of a workability evaluation result.
FIG. 7 is a diagram showing a verification result of processing time calculation by a workability evaluation method.
FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of design improvement by a workability evaluation method.
FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an example of basic elements and their contents in assembly work.
FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of correction elements and their contents in assembly work.
FIG. 11 is a plan view illustrating an example of output of an assemblability evaluation result.
FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating an accuracy verification result of calculation of an assembly cost by an assembly property evaluation method.
FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of design improvement by an assemblability evaluation method.
FIG. 14 is a flowchart showing a flow of conventional design, evaluation of manufacturability, and design improvement.
[Explanation of symbols]
1. Arithmetic unit,
2. Storage device,
3. Display device,
4). keyboard,
5. Printer,
10. Examples of basic elements: plane,
11. Examples of basic elements: cylindrical surfaces,
12 Basic element example: Round hole surface.

Claims (3)

Data defining a basic element X that classifies a machining surface constituting a part or a machining method applied to the part, a symbol for identifying each basic element X corresponding to each basic element X, and a plurality of data A basic deduction that is an index of ease of processing calculated by comparing the processing cost or processing time of a reference element selected from one of the basic elements with the processing cost or processing time of each basic element A basic element data table as at least a configuration item, and
Data that defines correction elements x that classify at least the material, size, and finishing accuracy of the part, and the state of each correction element x corresponding to each correction element x is divided into one or a plurality of them. A symbol for identifying a section, and a processing cost or processing time of a correction standard selected from the plurality of sections corresponding to each correction element x, and processing of other sections of the correction element x A correction factor data table having at least a component as a correction coefficient that is an index that affects the ease of processing calculated by comparing the cost or processing time ;
Storage means for storing
An input means for inputting symbols of basic elements and correction elements representing each part constituting the product to be evaluated ;
Based on the inputted symbol, the basic element data table and the correction element data table are searched, the corresponding basic deduction points and correction coefficients are read out, and the read out basic deduction points are corrected by the correction coefficients to reduce parts deduction e a calculation means for calculating i or a part coefficient e i ′ and calculating a part workability score Ei and a product workability score E based on the part deduction point e i or the part coefficient e i ′ ;
Display means for displaying the calculated part workability score Ei and the product workability score E ;
An apparatus for evaluating the ease of processing a product, comprising: The calculation means further includes the part workability score Ei and the product workability score E, the existing similar part or the existing similar product part workability score Ei ′ or the product workability score E ′, and the existing similar part. Alternatively, based on information on the processing cost or processing time of existing similar products, calculate an estimate of the processing cost or processing time for the product or part being evaluated ,
2. The product processability evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display unit further displays the processing cost or the processing time estimated for a product or part to be evaluated . The display means further displays a part processability score Ei ′ or a product processability score E ′ of the existing similar part or the existing similar product, and a processing cost or time required for processing of the existing similar part or the existing similar product. 3. The product processability evaluation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the device is displayed in comparison .

Images