Foreshortened Linear Dimensions (Clipped Dimensions)

As mentioned in another article in this series, SolidWorks does not support the foreshortening of linear dimensions, except in views where both ends are visible in the view, such as break views.  Also mentioned was that foreshortening of linear dimensions doesn’t make much sense in most circumstances because both ends of dimension must be in view for a drawing’s reader to understand the callout.  As such, they are not supported by the ASME standard.  Even still, there may be some cases where it is necessary or desired to clip a dimension within detail or partial section views.

There is one potential workaround to allow this in SolidWorks, using a series of double arrow symbols created by Jeff Hamilton.  Jeff’s creation requires a modification to your gtol.sym file.  Unfortunately, to implement this change, you’ll either need to be a one man show or a CAD Administrator who has time to update everyone’s computers with the edited gtol.sym file.  This is because any symbols within a drawing reside in the gtol.sym file, and that file is specific to each and every install of SolidWorks.  Another drawback is that the user must visually and manually align the double arrows into the appropriate position.

Selection of double arrows

Barring these drawbacks, this is a pretty good solution for those who really need this function.  The file can be downloaded at this location:  Geometric Tolerancing Symbols Library Foreshorten Arrows Add-on.  Instructions on how to edit the gtol.sym file and use the new symbols are included in the download.  Have fun!

Foreshortening Dimensions (Radial, not linear)

[Updated to address changes in SOLIDWORKS 2016]

SOLIDWORKS provides for the foreshortening of diameters and radii dimensions.  Older releases of SOLIDWORKS didn’t allow for the foreshortening of linear dimensions (or clipped dimensions), except in break views where both ends of the dimension are visible.  When I first encountered this limitation years ago, I was concerned that SOLIDWORKS developers just simply overlooked this functionality.  After all, if one can foreshorten a radius, then why not a linear dimension?  I was even sure I could find examples of this already being done on other drawings in detail views.  I was trying to use an open ended dimension line with double arrows on the open end.  I may have actually used this method a couple of times back in my AutoCAD days.

But what didn’t SOLIDWORKS support this for many years?  The lack of foreshortened linear dimensions can be understood by reading ASME Y14.5M-1994 paragraph 1.8.2.2.  This paragraph established the foreshortening of radii.  Its title Foreshortened Radii seems to preclude these methods for linear dimensions.  But why?

The clue is the intent.  1.8.2.2. states that if the center of a radius is outside the drawing or interferes with another view, the radius dimension may be foreshortened.  Strangely enough, paragraph 1.8.2.2 does not specifically describe the just how foreshortening is demonstrated, other than to say the dimension line is radial to the arc.  It does reference a figure that shows radii centers repositioned with zigzagged radial and coordinate dimension lines.  The key is that the center of the radius is still within view.  The dimensions have known termination at both ends.

Allowed foreshortening of radial dimensions

There is an issue with using this methodology on any dimensions where the termination of both ends is not clearly shown.  Without both ends of the dimension in view (or known through some other way), there is no established way to determine where the dimension’s open end terminates.  It is an incomplete specification.  In other words, if I have a detail view and attempt to dimension to a feature not in that detail, the fabricator does not know the location of the other end of that dimension.  SOLIDWORKS previous limitation was not really a limitation after all.  It follows the drafting standards in a very logical way.

Disallowed foreshortening and diameter forshortening

Another thing SOLIDWORKS allows is the foreshortening of diameters.  Although this is not directly supported by the standards, it is common practice.  Unlike the foreshortening of linear dimensions, foreshortened diameters make sense since the other end of the dimension is known, even if it is not shown.  I’ll address foreshortened diameters in more detail a future article.

As of SOLIDWORKS 2016, foreshorten of linear dimensions is supported without restriction.  This was added for customers who still need methods to clip dimensions regardless to the issues mentioned above.

SolidWorks Drawings ER Blitz – SW Drawing Forum

There’s something going on over at the SolidWorks Drawings Discussion Forum.  There has been an on-going project consisting of users working together to form a list of requests to improve SolidWorks’ drawing functionality.  It all started out with a posted message that was simple, yet poignant by user RYAN W.

When is solidworks ever going to focus on drawings for a new release? Of all the parts in SW I think it needs the most improvement. When ever I find a bug or have a problem in SW it usually is in drawings. I think it would be great to have a new release focus on this area.

From there, the discussion evolved.  Users started going into what they would like to see added to SolidWorks’ drawing functionality.  Others brought up bugs they found.  Somewhere in the discussion, Dwight Livingston took the baton.  He compiled list of eighteen improvements from everyone’s comments.  It included requests such “Create option to attach the ASME symbol for ALL AROUND to the bend of a leader”, “Change SW tables to have basic spreadsheet functions, without MS Excel”, “Create option to add a new centermark to an existing centermark group”, and “Create feature to embed custom symbols in drawing files”, just to name a few. 

This list has received considerable enthusiasm and has taken on a life of its own; it grew in scope and size in a second thread titled What Drawing Functionality Does SolidWorks Need to Improve?.  Finally, Mr. Livingston formalized the discussion under the thread SolidWorks Drawings ER Blitz, with the intent to finish compiling the list of requests by Sept 17, 2008.  By now, the list is over 40 individual items in about 15 categories.  Some of the categories are DRAWING EXPORT, DIMENSION, HOLE CALLOUTS, GD&T, and SYMBOLS.

Now, unofficially, I can say that SolidWorks Corp is aware of this list.  It is my impression that it will not be ignored.  That is not to say that every item will be dutifully explored and implemented right away.  There are many factors that go into decisions as to which improvements to work on first and when to implement them.  At the very least, SolidWorks Corp is listening.

Please check out the current list.  If so inclined, please feel free to voice your own thoughts about items on this list and mention any new items that need to be added.  What’s been bugging you?  What bugs need fixing? Where does SolidWorks not allow you to detail something per ASME or ISO standards without some heinous workaround?  Where is SolidWorks drawing functionality still lacking?  What functionality can be added to increase efficiency? 

Is it a Bolt or a Screw? (Nut jobs welcome)

The term bolt in plain English has many definitions as applied to the Engineering Principle.  It can be the movable rod that slides into a socket to fasten a door.  It is the portion of a lock that moves from and back to the case.  It can be fastening rods, pins or screws, usually threaded to receive a nut.1  Other mechanical items also carry this name, but the examples here are likely the most common.  The common factor between each of these definitions is that there is an object (often rod-like) that is inserted into something else, often for the purpose of some sort of fastening.  Given this broad definition, the question might be asked, when is a bolt called a screw?  Not so fast!

Much like bolt, screw has many definitions in plain English.  As applied to the Engineering Principle, a screw can be a fastener with a tapered shank and helical thread.  It is also a threaded cylindrical rod that engages a threaded hole, and used to fasten in some fashion.2  (Of course, there’s the famous Archimedes’ screw, which fastens nothing, but sure moves a lot of water uphill.)  From the plain English definitions, one might say that ultimately all screws are bolts except for one strange caveat.  Bolt, as a fastening rod, is made to receive a nut.  From the definition for screw, it appears that screws are made to be driven into a threaded hole.  But doesn’t a nut usually have a threaded hole?  So where is the distinction?

As strange as it may seem, the distinction may simply be where the threaded fastener is torqued.  It might be said a screw is normally torqued via its head, and a bolt is normally torqued via the applied nut.  In this case, the decision whether to call the threaded fastener a bolt or a screw is based on how the fastener will normally be applied.  This is the logical conclusion if one takes the plain English definitions at face value, and willfully ignores the fact that a having a nut does not magically turn a screw into a bolt, and not having a nut does not magically turn a bolt into a screw.

So, this leads into researching the topic further, having to go back to traditional applications within the Engineering Principle for these terms.  The following is oft quoted:

Bolts are defined as headed fasteners having external threads that meet an exacting, uniform bolt thread specification (such as M, MJ, UN, UNR, and UNJ) such that they can accept a nontapered nut.  Screws are defined as headed, externally-threaded fasteners that do not meet the above definition of bolts.

I will state that I’ve seen this quoted several times, but cannot find an attributable source.  That aside, traditionally a bolt meets a particular uniform specification so that it can receive a nontapered standard nut.  Screws are everything else (such as tapered screws that form their own thread during initial insertion).  This would suggest that the terms bolt and screw are not interchangeable.  In fact, one is not a subset of the other.  It would also suggest that there is a major misuse of the term screw since almost everything labelled as a screw is really a bolt, according the above definition. 

Looking for some formal definition might be of help here.  Believe it or not, the U.S. Government has made an attempt at such in a document called What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know About: Distinguishing Bolts from Screws.3  This document references ASME B18.2.1 1981 and Fastener Standards, 6th Edition as sources.  I do not believe either of these standards are current, even though this government document is dated January 2008.  The document authoritatively (note the sarcasm) goes on to define bolt and screw as if these standards provide a clear guidance regarding the matter of definitions.

Bolt – A bolt is an externally threaded fastener designed for insertion through the holes in assembled parts, and is normally intended to be tightened or released by torquing a nut.

Screw – A screw is an externally threaded fastener capable of being inserted into holes in assembled parts, of mating with a preformed internal thread or forming its own thread, and of being tightened or released by torquing the head.

You know what, those definitions do not seem all that unreasonable.  Of course, the U.S. Government, being what it is, needs a 21 page document to make these two statements.  (It makes comments on everything from the Internet to a plead for small businesses to rate agency responsiveness to small business needs.) 

However, English is one of those funny languages where definition of words is not by decree, but rather by use.  (I say this sarcastically since almost every language, except for a few like French and perhaps German, works in this way.  Ironically, to the best of my limited knowledge about them, neither French nor German have separate words for bolt and screw, in this context.)  How do many people use these terms?  This is not a democracy.  The majority has a say in this, but not exclusively.  Definitions are added simply by many people using a word in a particular way (majority or not).  So, the question points back to each of us.  How have you used these terms?  Is there a distinction, or are these synonyms?

In practice, when applied to threaded fasteners, my use of these terms may be simply this; a bolt is fastened with the use of a generic wrench; a screw is fastened with the use of some sort of dedicated driver, such as screw driver, hex head driver, Torx Plus driver, or torque driver.  Ironically, even these basic definitions also have many exceptions, so even these are not universal.  They certainly contradict the traditional definitions.  They also do not provide any mechanically significant functional distinction.  So, even though they may be commonly used, they do not provide any usefulness when classifying a threaded fastener.

As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on this issue.  Whether a person calls a particular threaded fastener by the term bolt or screw seems to be fairly arbitrary these days.  It is based more on personal preference, rather than any formal definition.

Drawing Revisions and PDMWorks (Part 1: Letter Revision Identifiers)

Whether using actual drawings or relying on the model, and whether using a highly controlled documentation system or nearly completely uncontrolled, one will find revisions are necessary.   It is important to use them consistently.  It is important to make sure each time another person sees a drawing or model, they understand which revision is in front of them.  It is important not to reuse revisions. If there is a working copy that is incomplete, preliminary or draft, then stating such directly on the document is very important.

Also important is avoiding interpretation confusion.  If using letters to represent revision iterations, avoid using letters that resemble numbers or that can have alternative meanings.  ASME Y14.35M-1997 states that I, O, Q, S, X and Z should not be used as revision letters.  In fact, other ASME engineering drawing standards also forbid the use of these letters for other purposes as well.  The reason is that I, O, Q, S, and Z all can be misinterpreted as numbers 1, 0, 5 and 2.  When X is used, it looks like a field that requires further input.

These rules where written before the Information Age (wiki) and our reliance on computer databases, back when documentation relied on handwriting.  However, these rules are just as important in our current age as they have ever been before.  Many different types of computer fonts exist.  What looks like a 1 in one font will look like an I in another.  Even with my 20/20 vision, I will confuse S’s with 5’s in small sizes in certain common fonts.  Also, transcription errors still enter the picture, as a human who does not have direct access to the electronic database is usually involved at some point.

PDMWorks (soon to be renamed to SolidWorks Workgroup PDM by SolidWorks Corp) automatically assigns revisions to documents when they are checked-in.  There are options for the PDMWorks Administrator to use dumb ranges, or to establish a list of revision identifiers from which to pull.  Unfortunately, when using letters, PDMWorks does not automatically disregard the taboo letters.  So, I’ve made an Excel file with a list of allowed revision letters.  It can be copy-and-pasted directly into PDMWorks VaultAdmin’s Revision Scheme Listing fields.  It is available here: Allowed Revision List.

Part 2 of this article series will address using PDMWorks ability to automatically revise drawings upon check-in.

Drill and Tap (~Part 3)

This entry is part 4 of 4 in the series Hole Callouts

I previously discussed threaded hole callouts in the context of SolidWorks and its calloutformat.txt files (Part 1 and Part 2). As mentioned before, there is a tendency for some to callout threaded holes with too much information. Often, the thread callouts include the drill size. As argued before, including the drill size usually over-defines the threaded hole because the specifications of the thread itself identify the drill size. It also attempts to specify manufacturing processes, which is not allowed by ASME Y14.5M-1994. In fact, including the drill size within a thread callout may actually provide incorrect specification in many cases.

This is particularly true in the case of threads that are in blind holes. These are usually made with forming taps (roll taps). The diameter of the drilled hole for a roll tapped thread is bigger than it is for a cut thread. For example, for a 10-32 roll tap, the drill size is .1762, while a 10-32 cut thread drill size is .159. Once formed or cut, the specification for the ID of the thread is .156 to .164.

On drawings where customary units (inch) are used, the number of decimals places in the dimension usually determines the tolerance for that dimension. Stating a drill size as a decimal dimension applies the standard drawing tolerances to that dimension unless some general note is added.  This means that the tolerance for the drill callout likely differs with that required by the thread.  So, if the drill size is called out, drawing may be providing the wrong information to the machine shop.