The best solution I have come up with is to use an offset note related to the dimension
I use the GDT circularity symbol for the circle and place it centered on the "elbow" in the leader
The offset note will move with the dimension
I know the all-around circle on the leader is rare on drawings for simple dimensions or annotation.
However rare it may be, the lack of a simple implementation has escaped me for decades.
I am glad this was posted because I know that I've needed this enough to comment here.
Please know that I can't stand the GD&T implementation as provided by PTC in Creo. It is highly unstable while doing my own beta testing on Creo 1 and Creo 2. Hard crashes on "move datum association to surfaces"... were "virtually" repeatable on a qualified Dell laptop. So even if there is an All Around symbol for GT&D that you could use generically for "ALL AROUND"-C5 or "ALL AROUND"-R0.2, it would have been lost on me since GD&T didn't "function" for my implementation plan.
Next you ask why not make a special Symbol (proper) to make ALL AROUND leaders on a generic nomenclature note. Here you can edit the text and/or include the appropriate feature symbol for the dimension.
I would have created this symbol if the problem existed on every drawing I create. Basically, it cannot be too hard to make a symbol work by drawing a circle, pinning the leader to something else, and as long as the leader tail is consistent, so will the placement of the circle. There are ways around that too in the symbol definition. But this solution does interest me since PTC also didn't bother probably due to the low incidence of use, which I will attest to based on my precision machining drawing efforts for high tech over a period of many decades.
BTW: my excellence in creating usable symbols is limited to experience over 20 years... and I've created all of 3.
1: My goto universal datum flag (no PTC GT&D still requires flags on drawings!)
2. My goto surface finish symbol that actually has properties.
3. ...was so long ago I forget what it was.
Not everyone becomes a Symbol Master! Most don't even get past the clunky interface!
So what do I do when I actually need this feature?
This is my current, everyonceinawhile..., method:
Drop a sketched circle on the drawing
Change its properties to be leader like (so it prints right)
Associate the circle to the view
Move the circle to the leader elbow
(unfortunately, this circle cannot be associated to the annotation belonging to the leader)
Too many steps?
You bet... but what are you going to do if you only do this to less than a half dozen callouts a year including change orders? And yes, I did have one go bad on the drawing in a revision.
PTC, are you listening? I cannot be more clear than this post. The All Around symbol is a valid requirement outside GT&D.
What I do want to know while we're on the subject; what is the proper size of the circle in relation to the annotation height? I haven't found that in any of the standards as yet.
Actually, the “All Around Symbol” is defined in ASME Y14.5 2009 (paragraph 3.3.19) as:
The symbolic means of indicating that a profile tolerance applies to surfaces all around the true profile in the view shown is a circle located at the junction of the leader from the feature control frame…” Thus, though while ASME Y14.5 is not strictly only a GD&T spec as commonly thought of (it also mandates how regular dimensions are called out, the meaning of centerlines, etc.), the “All Around Symbol” IS specific to GD&T, specifically, only to Profile tolerance. Per the spec, it has no other use or definition. That’s not to say that other specs, (i.e. welding) might not also use the symbol for other things, but it is not per Y14.5 a symbol that defines multiple radii. You would be in violation of Y14.5 to use the symbol for multiple radii. You could make a general note that defines the symbol, but I would not recommend it because of confusion with the actual GD&T symbol meaning and as mentioned the dwg would not conform to Y14.5 anyway.
For size, Fig. C-3 in Y14.5 shows the diameter as being “h”, or letter height (whatever that is for dimensions on the particular dwg, which leads me to...). ASME Y14.2 determines actual letter height (and line weights, etc.) for dwgs.
Hope this helps!
Oh no... all around is not "general" flag... It is before the ISO "assumption" allowances where a continuous edge treatment that cannot be shown clearly as to linearity or profile. It has nothing to do with Y14.5 and everything to do with standard drafting practices. And yes, welding references are probably an extension of this practice.
You must have these books laying around. What does Y14.2 say about the height ratio?
...It appears to have a stand-alone definition.
What's interesting here is the "between" symbol... do we have one of these now?
Dimension origin? Man, I could have used those in a few places!
I'm not sure about the ISO standard, I've never worked for foreign companies, but everything I've ever done for US companies (and long stints with the US Navy, NASA, DOE, etc.) was all ASME Y14.5. I'd thought they were both pretty unified now. And in Y14.5 at least, the "All Around" symbol is only to be used specifically for Profile tolerances (in the paragraph I mentioned). I don't ever remember using it for anything other than a GD&T Profile tolerance, or any of the welding callouts I've used where the welding spec specifically defined the "All Around" symbol and what it meant. It would be nice if Y14.5 specified that you could use that for rounds, or even surface finish, but per the 2009 version it is only for Profile tolerancing. What I like is the "All Over" symbol, which is 2 concentric circles, though I have yet to use it. We've typically specified that in the notes, which I don't like as much, but I digress...
As we have to use these standards for NASA, I've got access to 'em all. Also, I'm ASME certified (Technologist Level - on an older version, but I've used it since 1982 and am on the 2009 version now). So, Y14.2 (Paragraph 6.4) says: "A minimum letter height (h) of 3 mm or .12 in. is recommended."
I was thinking the ratio between the all-around symbol and the text height.
I was misreading your reply... Turns out, yes, the all-around circle in Creo is the same as the text height.
I went through all the training as well through Intel in the 80's.
But that was still ANSI Y14.5 before ISO was even a glimmer in ASME's ISO implementation.
One thing that stood out is that as long as something is understood in industry, it is valid on a drawing.
Therefore, calling out a chamfer along a profile (edge view) would require an "ALL AROUND" qualifier with the leader dimension. It became an understanding that the circled elbow of the leader always meant "ALL AROUND".
And since ALL AROUND WELD was already established long ago and with the advent of the "ALL AROUND" profile, it only strengthens the original purpose of replacing verbiage with symbols. Therefore, even with the statement as written, the symbol can be applied elsewhere as it is already used as such within other ASME standards. The meaning, when "properly" used, only has one interpretation.
Now why would one draw a drawing without GT&D if it makes things so much clearer?
In my industry, when you look closely, still has the average person interpreting drawings for quotation.
Sad as it is, a drawing with GT&D on it will quote out 50% higher than the exact same part without GT&D.
I have been directed more than once to remove all feature control frames from the drawings 😞
I think maybe industry may be interpreting the standard differently compared to the military/NASA, where the exact letter of the spec is expected to be adhered to. I know all the checker's in either place, as the ones here at SNC, would flag to remove the "All Around" circle if used for anything else but Profile tolerance or on a welding callout. I agree it should become a universal symbol (makes sense, right?), but so far, it's only considered valid if the spec specifically defines it.
I've run into the "GD&T" surcharge before, sadly, it seems common with the shops that don't know how to use or interpret the spec. I found it only when I was was working in non-military/NASA industries, as the vendors we deal with here had BETTER know the spec. In some cases (bonus tolerance) it actually makes the vendor's life easier, in some cases, it does make it a little more difficult, but, if that's what's required to make the part/assy function, then it has a purpose. I think a lot of time people specify things they have no clue about, and that can add cost. I've seen some REALLy stupid GD&T thrown on some dwgs over the years.....
The ASME people DO take industry feedback, so maybe e should push to make the "All Around" symbol universal?
You can read the statement to imply that the only valid GD&T feature control frame that can use this symbol is one of two profile tolerances. Otherwise the "all around weld" symbol would not be valid which was established before 1982. My 1994 reference still shows "ALL AROUND" under the FCF.
As to the discussion... if the below image is valid, then the purpose of this post is valid. We're just asking to put a "circle" on the leader elbow for whatever purpose. This will also allow me to generate a profile feature control frame from the note feature using a leader modifier to add the circle.
My references are offsite at the moment. But if the above references are valid, then ALL AROUND has already been established outside of feature control frames much longer than the change made to profile tolerance feature control frame where it was understood that the affected area was defined below the frame.
I hear you on the shop quality, but you'd be surprised how nice some of those parts come out (they meet 10 um specs with ease). When you tell them all elements need to be about a common axis, they say "of course, it is cut in the same operation...". Which, of course, makes me want to shoot myself rather than try to explain why I must specify that... again.
I know I will never change the mind of an inspector. So yes, maybe it is time to get this defined. Removing words from documents can only be a plus when it comes to a global manufacturing world.
One a side note, you and I should cover what happened to Symmetry 🙂
I knew we talked about this before 🙂
This discussion is nothing new obviously. A quick Google will come up with all kinds of discussions as to allowable or not. The link helps as it defines my earlier conviction as "Extension of Principles" where one poster correctly de-correlated Y14.5 from the well established weld version of "WELD ALL AROUND".
The fact that early Y14.5 used terminology for the Profile FCF's area of application (A<>B, ALL AROUND, 120*, etc.). The new designation with the symbol is itself an "Extension of Principles". But the definition seems to be narrowly allocated to GD&T (Y14.5 specific) rather than basic drafting practices where this symbol already existed in welding.
What I do accept as very clear is that no other FCF can use the ALL AROUND symbol with any meaning. That is the only thing I read in the definition as sacred. In essence... it is defined too narrowly so I can be interpreted as a Y14.5 specific definition. Otherwise, the definition should have referenced other established uses for the exact same symbol already in use under ASME (ANSI at the time) management.
I am also very aware that institutions can define their own requirements for consistency. There, I fully agree... Extension of Principles are frowned upon by many (NASA/JPL, MIL, aviation, etc.). Which is funny, because the practice is also encouraged to bring the standards forward. I suspect that makes Intel progressive 🙂
I agree that I'd like to see the "All Around" defined to mean, well, all around, regardless of what you're talking about. I think the problem is, is that Y14.5 is clear in it's definition (Profile only), and if you say you're compliant with Y14.5 (general note, note in the format tol block, etc.), then that statement precludes the use of it for anything else except welding symbols, which are covered usually by a note that the weldment is in accordance with the welding spec (AWS something if I remember), and that defines "All Around" for the weld only. In neither spec (or any other spec to my knowledge), is "All Around" specified to mean for radii or finish symbols. I've never seen that before either. I think maybe some companies are taking liberties with the "all around" meaning. Interesting.... I know that'd never fly here, our checkers are 100% by-the-book. I've already gotten into some tussles over GD&T, where I know I'm correct, but my boss is telling me just to make checking happy so we can release dwgs..... 😞
Yeah, I'm with ya! Of course, I'm still waiting on the option of having an updated N-Sided mesh, so..... 🙂
It could probably easily be done with a symbol, as you have the option to specify leaded direction etc. when creating the symbol. The symbol interface is kinda wonky though. It works, and you can get around easily enough when you figure out it's quirks, but.
I should dig up and send you some of the GD&T symbols I created because I got frustrated with some of the standard creo stuff. I made a symbol that works pretty well for the datum "plunger". If ya like, e-mail me @ work and I'll try and dig them up for ya! 🙂
The plunger I've done already. The rest works fine for me. The only other oversight from Creo using annotation over GT&D is where the FCF's symbol has to merge with more than one frame (true position instance with multiple qualifier frames). And now add this Profile ALL AROUND option as another missing piece of the non-GT&D puzzle. Hence, I am not surprised by this posting. It seems to come up annually in various places. Maybe I should ask if ASME is listening 🙂
I do know the symbol interface. Ugly as sin! Pretty much the last of the ugly step-children PTC still deals with within Creo. Problem is that newer users will ignore it just because of this horrible interface. That's were opportunities lay for you and me 🙂
Yes, I work hard to do GT&D but ignore Creo's implementation of it. I'd love to see a true LOE study on the options. Since I cover both disciplines, I prefer to do my GT&D at the drafting level, regardless of the means. I also have no clients that use Creo. They just want the PDF at a reasonable cost.
Maybe we need a poll; Who is forced to use PTC's GT&D implementation on drawings? Okay, maybe there are better ways to say that. But seriously... would you choose to use it if you had the option? Can it become so natural in your process that it actually saves time? I know that I've lost DAYS trying to make it work early on. Much of that time was lost due to crashes for the simple fact that I needed to move a datum tag on the drawing.
And then there is Y14.41...
Boy I tell ya, GD&T is a cakewalk in creo compared to having to do it in NX 8.5! Makes me wanna rip my hair out and throw things. You get this text string, and God help you if you get it wrong......because you have to delete and try again. Editing it is a total pain. For some complex symbols, when I finally get them right, I've just copied the text string into a document so I can cut&paste and change the Datums or values. Ugh!
NX 8.5 is at least 4 years old!
Compare Wildfire 5 GD&T to what Creo 2+ has and you will find a lot of differences, too.
Funny, Creo 2 is that old and I still prefer it due to the annotation debacle.
I never use the GD&T in NX. I liked drafting in NX. It was the only CAD system that I considered "Unremarkable"... which as many of you know is the best you can get with CAD.
Wow, that's interesting. Even the die-hard NX users/creo haters here actually HATE drafting in NX. We've actually talked about doing the dwgs in creo while leaving the models in NX, until we switch to creo 3 because the dwgs are such a pain to do. Now, granted, the more tightly controlled the dwgs are (for NASA) the more of a pain they are to do in general, so, maybe that has something to do with it. You must have some awesome NX tricks you should tell me about! 🙂
True, but that's all we got! At least until we transition to creo 3. I can compare it to creo Elements / Pro 5.0, and even that equally old version of creo has much better dwg capabilities than NX.