IEEE Standard Schematic Symbols

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

Hi All,

We have standardize the our Library. I created the FPGA Footprint and Symbol. 

I thought I would follow the IEEE standard symbol but how create?  
This is the Microsemi PDF datasheet - MX_DS.pdf  
Do Connector Symbols also we follow IEEE standard? 

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
muthu Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Active User Joined: 20 Aug 2012 Location: kovai Status: Offline Points: 27	Post Options Post Reply Quote muthu Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: IEEE Standard Schematic Symbols Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 3:14am
	Hi All, We have standardize the our Library. I created the FPGA Footprint and Symbol. I thought I would follow the IEEE standard symbol but how create? This is the Microsemi PDF datasheet - MX_DS.pdf Do Connector Symbols also we follow IEEE standard?



Tom H Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 05 Jan 2012 Location: San Diego, CA Status: Offline Points: 5716	Post Options Post Reply Quote Tom H Report Post Thanks(1) Quote Reply Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 4:13pm
	IEEE standards for schematic symbols does not exist anymore. The new standard that is trying to replace it is IPC-2612-1 "Sectional Requirements for Electronic Diagramming Symbol Generation Methodology" There is no standard for connector symbols (yet).

matthelm Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Active User Joined: 06 Jul 2012 Location: Chicago, IL Status: Offline Points: 21	Post Options Post Reply Quote matthelm Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 10 Sep 2012 at 7:35am
	Most people that follow a published standard, use the old ANSI/IEEE Std 315A-1986 standard. I've worked at about 6 companies in my life, and only one of them used this standard. All the others use a "home grown" standard. It would be nice to see a new published standard, but I don't think anyone would rebuild their libraries to use it. Someone starting from scratch MIGHT use it.

BryanT Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Advanced User Joined: 06 Mar 2012 Location: Cupertino, CA Status: Offline Points: 55	Post Options Post Reply Quote BryanT Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 10 Sep 2012 at 8:29am
	Hi - I was on the committee that developed IPC-2612-1. We completely understood that companies with established standards for schematic symbols were not likely to change them to fit the 2612-1. Our main intent was directed toward young engineers fresh out of school who needed direction in creating symbols, companies who were looking to re-vamp their libraries and wanted to follow a standard, or anyone else who was looking for guidance in symbol creation. I agree with you Matt, most companies use, and will continue to use, "home-grown" standards but hopefully someone who is just starting out or looking for guidance will find the IPC-2612-1 helpful.

muthu Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Active User Joined: 20 Aug 2012 Location: kovai Status: Offline Points: 27	Post Options Post Reply Quote muthu Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 10 Sep 2012 at 9:42am
	Thanks to all.

Larry Joy Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List New User Joined: 20 Oct 2014 Status: Offline Points: 2	Post Options Post Reply Quote Larry Joy Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 20 Oct 2014 at 9:46am
	Hi Tom, I disagree vehemently that IEEE Std 315 (which includes 315A) does not exist anymore. It is true that it has been declassified as an ANSI standard but you can still get the standard from IEEE. Note that in 315 and especially 315A that the symbols that are marked with IEC (with an underscore and an over bar) are from, what is today, IEC 60617. This is the international standard for electrical/electronic schematic diagram symbols. Riddle me this: Why is the IPC reinventing the wheel when it should be referring to, accepting, endorsing, and using IEC 60617? In the matter of connector symbols I refer you to IEEE Std 315A, Clause 5 Graphic Symbols for Terminals and Connectors. Especially see Clause 5.6.1A for Coaxial plug and socket symbols. Note, again, that most of these are IEC symbols and are found in IEC 60617. Your response please. Regards, Larry Joy

Larry Joy Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List New User Joined: 20 Oct 2014 Status: Offline Points: 2	Post Options Post Reply Quote Larry Joy Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 20 Oct 2014 at 10:02am
	Just like for the IPC standards, you have to purchase IEEE Std 315 from the IEEE or IHS. There was a metal working website that had 315 in PDF file format, where I got my copy, but they have removed it. For IEC 60617 it is available only on a subscription basis from the IEC, or maybe you can get it through ANSI.

Tom H Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 05 Jan 2012 Location: San Diego, CA Status: Offline Points: 5716	Post Options Post Reply Quote Tom H Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 20 Oct 2014 at 10:08am
	http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/315-1975.html
	Stay connected - follow us! X - LinkedIn

Matthew Lamkin Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Advanced User Joined: 02 Oct 2012 Status: Offline Points: 284	Post Options Post Reply Quote Matthew Lamkin Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 22 Sep 2015 at 7:11am
	I seem to recall getting IEC 60617 as BSIEC 60617 from the local library BSonline downloads. Although not well adopted there are still those I see using it, most use ANSI because it's what they were taught with and the guys that taught them leanrt it fro their tutors who learnt it from their tutors. The IPC-2612 to me looks rather bad, the symbology looks ancient and the pictures make it look like they are not following a regular sizing. Perhaps the draft just had deliberatly cruddy pics in?