Methods of justifying split ballooning 1

[gibsonb]

I have been in the industry for quite some time and have found split ballooning much more preferable in depicting parts in assemblies; particularly when using CAD systems such as Pro/E. However, I have found strong "old school" resistance from my boss to accept this new method of calling out parts on the face of the drawing.

ASME Y14.5.34, paragraph 3 defines "Find No. or Item No.", but does not describe a face-of-the-drawing symbol. In essence, ASME standards do not specifically provide any requirements for this specific issue. Strange!

I have lobbied to have a note included which defines the upper and lower half of the balloon to remove any ambiguity. Beyond that, can anyone recommend any strategies, and/or suggestions, that will help argue my case?

 

[CheckerRon]

Are you talking about defining find number on top and quantity on bottom of your split balloon?

 

[KENAT]

Take a look at thread1103-203140 and some earlier posts on ballooning.

Ballooning (or to some extent assembly drawings generally) is one thing which the current ASME standards don't seem to give that much direction on. 14.24-1999 Types & Applications of Engineering Drawings only shows the classic circular balloon, but that doesn't necessarily forbid any other form.

None of the places I've worked, or experienced designers/drafters I've worked with used split balloons and whenever a newbie tried using them they always got slapped;-).

If someone knows of other standards in the Y14.100 series I'd love to know them.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[ewh]

My experience tends to reflect that of KENATs. While it is not explicitly forbidden to use symbols other than a simple balloon on assy dwgs, I have never done so. The only situation where I have used split balloons is calling out datum points.

Believe it if you need it
or leave it if you dare

 

[MouseTrap]

I'm not sure why your boss is resisting this. I have worked with both ways of ballooning and prefer putting quantities in balloons, but yes it may amount to personal preference. I don't recall any specific standard. but when I have used split balloons in the machine tool and semiconducter machinery industries, the top half of the balloon was used for the item number, and the bottom of the balloon was used for the quantity in that specific area of the drawing.

Perhaps (and I'm winging it), if your boss is reluctant to commit to posting a quantity in the lower half of the balloon, perhaps the quantity could be posted next to the balloon in parentheses.

 

[WHITMIREGT]

In my 50 years in aerospace and working as a configuration manager with at least 100 companies, I have never seen split balloons or a standard showing them.

 

[ctopher]

I have seen this before. The top number is the item number, the bottom number is the sheet number it is detailed on.
Also...thread174-65774

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 1.1
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)
ctopher's blog

 

[ajack1]

Many of our customers request exactly what ctopher has described above.

 

[Tunalover]

Folks-
This is a trap that people fall into way too often. Many think that there is a "right" way and often spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find it. If there are no prohibitions against the split balloon in the ASME (or ISO) standards then by all means use it! If it makes you feel better then create a note that states what each half of the ballon is used for.



Tunalover

 

[gibsonb]

Thanks all for your replies. In spite of the replies, many companies I've worked for in San Diego in various military and commercial industries actively use split ballooning. In addition, in finding the most automated method using Pro/E, I can't justify anything other than split ballooning to get the work out. Thanks too, to tunalover for your reply. I agree with you that there should be no prohibitions in using split ballooning. However, I have a boss from the 19th century who won't budge unless I provide him with ANSI documentation to support it; inspite of it being for commercial applications. Thanks again.

 

[ctopher]

This is all I have found online.

http://www.a-sp.org/Standards/chapters/assembly/A1-39.pdf

Do a search for "balloon".

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 1.1
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)
ctopher's blog

 

[KENAT]

Interesting Ctopher.

They seem to use the split ballon for identifying which sheet a part is detailed on. Not sure if it was for detail assemblies or separate parts list, didn't look that close.

I'll have a look at Genium if I get the chance but given what Gary posted I doubt it shows them.

As you say gibsonb and as I meant to agree in my first post. The standards don't, as far as I'm aware, explicitly preclude doing it the way you say.

However, you'd need at least a company standard explaining it, if the drawings are only internal (no customer requirements) it may be all you need. The post Ctopher gave though seems to show why you'd need to explain it, as it's not even illustrated in any Industry standard I'm aware of it could be open to misinterpretation.

Our CAD system allows you to add Qty as a note next to the balloon, I'm surprised ProE doesn't have a similar option though it's a while since I've used it. The problem I have with this is that I only show qty next the balloon if it differs from the Parts List Qty, otherwise to me you're duplicating information. I explained this more in my posts in thread1103-203140

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[fcsuper]

If I'm understanding how split ballooning is executed, it may be confused with other identification methods such as dimensioning datum targets.

I don't use split ballooning, but I do specify local quantity for parts next to the balloon, along with applicable delta notes or other specifications.

Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group