Does IEC/EN61346 ring a bell ? (= + -)

Hi all.

It would be very nice if there are someone with whom I can share experiences and thoughts about the IEC/EN61346 referencing system.

If you dont know what this is, then I can very shortly describe it as a standard for assigning name references to components in a system. "System" can be a machine, a device, a plant or a project.
It describes how to separate the name references into functions (preceded with a "="), locations (preceded with a "+") and components (preceded with a "-").
Example: If a conveyor has the function =W03, the location +23 and the components M1 and B1 for the motor and motion sensor respectively, then these two components full name references becomes =W03+23-M1 and =W03+23-B1.

The thing is that the use of this is mandatory (!) in the EU. That said, most other companies I have seen have not implemented this in full, but maybe only in part.
There are many aspects to consider, and I have a feeling of uncertainty when I discuss it with my colleagues.

NB: You guys over there on the other side of the pond (where the football is oval) can probably ignore all this.

We use this as it is embedded into RSWire that we use for electrical drawings. didn't know it was mandatory.

For machinery as far as I know only the use of IEC symbols is required (EN 60204) unless you documentation includes a symbol key.

Maybe "mandatory" is too strong a word. I know that according to the machinery directive, you must document you machine or proces, and you are recommended to follow IEC/EN61346 as part of how you do that. You can decide not to follow IEC/EN61346 strictly, but then you must document how your own standard is organised. And I think that there is some time before the standard has to be fully implemented.

What I would like to know if others are seriously working with implementing the standard.
I can see that many still use the old standards, such as grouping within the component name (the part after the "-"), i.e. -K100, -K101 for relays assigned to one function, and -K200, -K201 .. for relays assigned to another function. Or putting some kind of koded number before the component type letter, i.e. -1K1, -1K2, -2K1, -2K2 .. which is illegal according to the new standard. Some also use the age-old system of assigning component names after the position in the diagrams -15K3 f.ex. for a relay on page 15 in path 3. This is still allowed (but only after the component type letter i.e. -K1503 f.ex.), but is not the preferred method according to the new standard.

Also, such things as what relays, contactors, circuit breakers etc. must be named, is not 100% clear to me.
I think that the following applies:
Control relay: -Kxx
PLC (CPU, input, output etc.): -Kxx
Contactor: -Qxx (!)
Circuit breaker: -Fxx
Thermistor relay: -Fxx
Motor: -Mxx
Solenoid valve: -Mxx (!)

What EU directive are you having to comply with by using EN61346?

The UK legislation is worded such that very few european standards are explicitly mentioned and it is largely left to the manufacturer to implement the statutory requirements as s/he sees fit. With or without using standards

Hi JohnW.

I am quoting a book about the standards, I dont have them all at hand.
According to the book, you shall follow the standard IEC/EN61082 for documenting electrical systems. This is a requirement that is directed to from the main standard IEC/EN60204-1.
And (again according to the book) in 2006 it is expected (the book is from 2005) that IEC/EN61082-1 paragraf 10 will be agreed upon by the commitee, and that means that there will be a requirement for CAD manufacturers that they must follow a whole list of standards, amongst them IEC/EN61346 (if they do not, they will not be able to state that they conform to IEC/EN60204-1).
It also says in the book that it is a requirement that makers of machine documentation follow IEC/EN61346.
Then again, some parts of the standard are rules and others are recommendations.

As I interpret this, as it is now we are more or less allowed to follow this standard as we like. But sooner rather than later this will turn into an absolute requirement.
You can spend a lot of time just studying this matter.
We discuss this in our company (sometimes heated), but I would like to hear from the outside world.

* bump *

Pardon me for bumping this up to the top again.

Can it really be that I am virtually alone (apart from some of my collegues) with fighting this matter ?
There has got to be someone out there with the same thoughts.

Apart from the above rant, in the meantime I have been giving it some thought about the "mandatory" bit.
As I see it, it really IS mandatory to follow the standard. But noone will drag you to court if you do not. That must be the explanation why there is so little focus on it. It is not like with safety issues where someone indeed will drag you to court if you dont follow the standards. After all it is "only" about documentation.

In the UK the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations (1992) do not specify any standard has to be followed, only that the Essential Health and Safety Requirements are met, it is up to the supplier of the machinery to justify the design.

The other regulations that apply generally to machines are the Low Voltage Regulations (1994), here the law does say that a standard must be followed if one exists so all electrical assemblies must be built to BSEN 60439-1.

However the enforcement is generally complaint driven so any enforcement is unlikely if you build your equipment to a safe standard but yur documentation is faulty in some miinor way. if your customers are happy with the circuit diagrams you supply then it is unlikely that anything will be said.

Hi again John

You are right that there probably will not be any problems almost no matter how we make our documentation.
I still would like to make it as correct as possible.
In our company we discuss how to make everything to the same system - over many departments and "kinds" of work, and then it would be best (to my opinion) to just use the standard as it is supposed to.

I have read another book about these standards, and it shall be understood so that all these standards are just "standards", you do not have to follow them (!) but if you do not, you must document that your own system works just as good as the standard.
For the hard parts such as the electrical bits in EN60204-1, and everything about safety, it is such a monumental task to do it that noone with their right mind would dream of trying to.
But for the soft parts such as documentation and naming of components, you can easily argue why your own standard is just as good.

In the UK the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations (1992) do not specify any standard has to be followed, only that the Essential Health and Safety Requirements are met, it is up to the supplier of the machinery to justify the design.

Click to expand...

Are you sure that the UK does not have to follow the macinery directive ? I thought that all EU countries has aggreed to follow it. And IEC/EN60204-1 is a part of the machinery directive.

Edit: John, are you sure that you are up to date ?
The machinery directive shall be followed by all machinery produced from 1995 (with some exceptions).

Hi JesperMP. In your post 3 you have
Control relay: -Kxx
PLC (CPU, input, output etc.): -Kxx
Contactor: -Qxx (!)
Circuit breaker: -Fxx
Thermistor relay: -Fxx
Motor: -Mxx
Solenoid valve: -Mxx (!)

Is a CB the same as a Thermistor relay?
Also where do you find a definitive list of these recommended naming conventions.
Regards Alan Case

I have only ever seen the symbols as you examples on machines from the continent, mainly Germany.

A few companies I've been involved with (German of cource) have CAD software that automatically creates the I/O symbols and referencing in that format.

In the UK, I'm not saying no-one does it, but no-one I have come across uses it.

Hello Alan.

According to EN61346-1 the naming shall follow the general "function" of the components.
"A" shall be used for components which cannot be put into categories (a complete electrical panel for example).
"B" is for transforming a physical input variable (a sensor or transmitter).
"F" is used for anything that mainly "protect" something (a circuit breaker, a thermistor relay, or an emergency stop).
"K" is used for controlling signals or information, except for protection which is "F" (a signal relay, a PLC).
"M" is used for components that puts mechanical energy into the proces (a solenoid/pneumatic valve or an electromotor).
"P" is used to present information (a lamp or an operator panel).
"Q" is used for a controlled activation of electrical/pneumatical/hydraulical energy (a contactor or thyristor).
"S" is used for anything that is manually operated or actuated (a switch, a pushbutton).
etc.

Notice how some names change away from the traditionally used.
A lamp that was H shall now be P.
A contactor that was K shall now be Q.
A solenoid that was Y shall now be M.

What I am confused about (amongst many things) is for example how to name components that may fall into several categories.
What about a MCCB that has its handle brought out through the panel front so that the operator can use it to disengage and padlock a system for maintenance. Is it an "A", an "F" or an "S" then ?

With a bit of luck I will be retired before this nonsense hits Ozz!!!!
F is fuse
KM is contactor
K or R is relay
QM is motor circuit breaker
Q or CB is circuit breaker
TR is thermistor relay
Most of my customers would not even entertain the thought of these terms. I have trouble getting them to agree on the terms I have listed above. And then there is red or green for running, red or amber for fault, red or green for safe etc etc. Everyone seems to have a different standard.

Hi Bob.

Actually how the component name types is standardised is the least revolutionary bit !

Much more controversial is the part about splitting component references into =function+location-component.
This is were the discussion in my company really starts.

hi Jesper
Agreed, but the other confusing bit is that there are so many things with the same prefix. Glad I live in Ozz away from all the EU nonsense.
Do the people on these committees get paid for coming up with such nonsense?

Well, I dont think that the bit with the prefix'es is so silly after all. They are trying to make a standard that can be used universally. They have tried to make it so that many componets do not change, terminals and cables are still called X and W for example. The thing is that there are not enough letters in the alphabet to reserve one for each kind of electrical component. Also it can be used for mechanical as well as electrical systems.
All this is why they are looking at the general function of a device.
Actually this part is relatively clear to me, with a few open points.

The bit about = + - also makes sense. But I am much more insecure as to how to implement it.