1 (edited by qetechy 2020-05-08 13:21:36)

Topic: Symbols IEC 60617 line width

Dear QET-Users,

with pleasure and success I am a new user of QElectroTech
and already a big fan. An her is my second posting/comment:

My topic with this post are the correct symbols in line with IEC 60617.
Up to now I could NOT find ANY free CAD tool, which includes the correct symbols.
The main reason for this is the high cost of PDF and online database access
of such IEC standards. There is only one free PDF from Alsthom about the standard:

  • pcad-libs.embedders.org/rules/ref_617.pdf

But most CAD tools do NOT include the correct symbols. Also KiCad and ProfiCad
with its libraries of IEC 60617 have the wrong dimensions of most parts.
This, because the so called module size and grid of all symbols is defined clearly
in the standard, but wrong in most libraries.

With QET the situation is up to now only a little bit better, but some deviation
does still exist. Especially the line thickness of symbols is currently to my humble
opinion not correct. The line width of 1,00 does not look good and clear
and is not in line with IEC 60617.
It is not easy to follow the IEC 60617 discussions, decisions and standards
if you are not a participating member in standardization bodies,
but I found two example protocols with comments about line width and grid:

  • tc3.iec.ch/meetings/tc3/2011/3_Helsinki_03.pdf

  • tc3.iec.ch/meetings/tc3/2009/TelAviv/3TA13.pdf

With this and the Alsthom pdf, it is possible to create quite good
standardized IEC 60617 symbols with QET. One modifcation for me
are improved or removed connectors of elements and the element
length of 2 or 4 without the length 3. A major modification is also the
increase of line width for all symbols and connections:

  • Conductor - Appearance Size: "2,00" instead of "1,00"

  • Element Editor - Appearance - Weight: "Strong" instead of "Normal"

I know about the other (partly old) forum discussions at:

  • qelectrotech.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1108

  • qelectrotech.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=277

Does it make sense to place/move my contribution to there?
The URL-limitation of "1" for hyperlinks in this forum is a pitty.
So you have to copy/paste/complete my mentioned URLs manually.

Please find attached one small example screenshot:

  • [5,21 kByte) qet-60617-line-width.png

If required, I can add more examples of my IEC 60617 symbols
or contribute to an official library.

Best Regards

Post's attachments

qet-60617-line-width.png, 5.21 kb, 275 x 202
qet-60617-line-width.png 5.21 kb, 191 downloads since 2020-05-08 

Re: Symbols IEC 60617 line width

Attached is a screenshot from my current IEC 60617 collection.
The naming with official IEC numbers is quite helpful
in order to find, sort and identify the right elements.

Regards from Rudy

Post's attachments

qet-60617-collection.png, 14.39 kb, 577 x 303
qet-60617-collection.png 14.39 kb, 220 downloads since 2020-05-08 

Re: Symbols IEC 60617 line width

Hi Rudy,
have you see EN 60617 directory on 0.8-dev?

Le dossier EN 60617 contient 912 éléments, réparties dans 127 dossiers.

Chemin de la collection :  common://10_electric/91_en_60617
Chemin dans le système de fichiers :  /home/laurent/Qet-svn/git/qet/elements/10_electric/91_en_60617

Re: Symbols IEC 60617 line width

https://qelectrotech.org/forum/viewtopi … 7026#p7026

Re: Symbols IEC 60617 line width

Thank you Scorpio,

yes, I have seen and checked the symbols in the QET installation directory:

However the too small line width of the symbols is only a cosmetic issue.
A real issue is, that some very basic shapes (R, L, C) and a lot of more are not correct.
Sorry for that criticism. Here some examples:

  • The resistor R is too long (3/5 instead of 4 units)

  • The capacitor C is to wide (4 instead of 2 units)

  • The inductance L is not on the grid

The odd length (5) of the resistor R has the result, that you
cannot place a capacitor as usual parallel to a resistor.
An oscillator circuit with RLC should be realized good and easy.
-> see attached screenshot.

I like QET, because I will create my own symbols.
But I think, that the default IEC 60617 library can be improved.

It is also a good idea to make a compromise between
conductors, terminals, length, width and grid of symbols.
E.g. the inductance with length 4 does not need connection
conductors, but the capacitor and resistor with odd length
do need appropriate connection conductors.

Regards from Rudy

Post's attachments

qet-60617_rlc-circuit.png, 11.26 kb, 377 x 334
qet-60617_rlc-circuit.png 11.26 kb, 174 downloads since 2020-05-08 

Re: Symbols IEC 60617 line width

In my mentioned document URL of IEC standardization body
meeting notes, there are references to correct line width:

The clause 6.6 of ISO 81714-1 describes how to divide the grid as follows:
The relation between the line width and the module size M used for the design of graphical symbols shall be 1:10. Characters and lines of graphical symbols should have the same line width. Standardized line widths given in ISO 128-20 should be used.

In IEC 61082-1, the line width is defined as follows:
For drawings the possible line widths are derived from 0.1 x M x (SQRT(2))^n with n = 0,1,2,3, ...

The parameter M is the module or grid size.
The quotes are dated 2011-09-26 and I do not know,
what has changed since then and what is current status.

It is wise to be as much as possible in line with standardization.
But it is very bad, that for relevant standards you have to pay for.
No surprise, that a lot of companies, countries and people do not (or cannot) respect them.

Best Regards from Rudy

Re: Symbols IEC 60617 line width

Re Rudy,

you are welcome to improve this library, fork our Github mirror and like other guys submit me a Pull Request :
https://github.com/qelectrotech/qelectr … rce-mirror


Re: Symbols IEC 60617 line width

Hello Laurent,

I'd like to contribute. Otherwise I wouldn't post the above.

  • Who is discussing and deciding about possible modifications of element collections?

  • Does it make sense to create two IEC 60617 libraries with different line widths?

  • May be the majority of users does not care about the current 1,00 line width?

  • Will it not confuse the QET users, when standard elements are changed? (continuously improved)

Regards from Rudy

Re: Symbols IEC 60617 line width

Hi Rudy
They look really great! nomicons/smile