Symbol: mast switch. Conventional graphic and letter designations of electrical radio elements
THIRD ARBITRATION COURT OF APPEALS
P O S T A N O V L E N I E
A74-46/2015
Krasnoyarsk
09 June 2015
The operative part of the resolution was announced on June 3, 2015.
The Third Arbitration Court of Appeal composed of:
presiding officer - Borisova G.N.,
judges: Morozova N.A., Yudina D.V.,
when maintaining the minutes of the court hearing Astakhova A.I.,
starring:
from the applicant (state committee for placing government orders of the Republic of Khakassia) - Soldatova N.I., representative by power of attorney dated December 26, 2014 No. 11;
from the defendant (Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Republic of Khakassia) - N.P. Kozlova, representative by power of attorney dated November 28, 2014 No. 06-9179;
having considered in court the appeal of the state committee for the placement of state orders of the Republic of Khakassia
on the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Khakassia
installed:
The State Committee for the Placement of Government Orders of the Republic of Khakassia TIN 1901089567, OGRN 1091901001323 (hereinafter referred to as the State Committee) filed an application with the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Khakassia to invalidate the decision dated 09.10.2014 on complaint No. 191/KS of the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Republic of Khakassia TIN 1901021 801, OGRN 1031900519243 (hereinafter referred to as the antimonopoly authority, department) in terms of recognizing the authorized body as having violated part 5 of article 31, paragraphs 1, 2 of part 1 of article 33, paragraph 1 of part 1 of article 64 of the Federal Law of April 5, 2013 No. 44-FZ “On Contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs" (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the Contract System) (clause 2), the commission of the authorized body violated clause 2 of part 4 of Article 67 of the Law on the Contract System (clause 3), in part issuing an order to the authorized body to eliminate violations of the legislation on the contract system in the field of procurement (clause 4), as well as to invalidate the order dated 09.10.2014 to eliminate violations of the legislation on the contract system.
By a court ruling dated January 19, 2015, the state budgetary healthcare institution of the Republic of Khakassia “Republican Clinical Infectious Diseases Hospital” TIN 1901023213, OGRN 1021900524062 (hereinafter referred to as the hospital), a company with limited liability "Repair and Finishing" TIN 1901097470, OGRN 1101901004270 (hereinafter referred to as "RIO LLC").
The State Committee also appealed to the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Khakassia to declare illegal the decisions of the department dated 09.10.2014 on complaints No. 193/KS and No. 196/KS. The State Committee's applications were accepted for processing, and the cases were assigned numbers A74-45/2015, A74-46/2015, A74-47/2015.
By a court ruling dated January 16, 2015 in case No. A74-45/2015, the hospital and the limited liability company “Construction Company “Dinal” TIN 1901078646, OGRN 1071901002293 were involved in the case as third parties not making independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute. (hereinafter referred to as the “Dinal” company).
By a court ruling dated January 19, 2015 in case No. A74-47/2015, the hospital and individual entrepreneur Nadezhda Ivanovna Nikitina, INN 190302308088, OGRNIP 304190309800088 (hereinafter referred to as the entrepreneur) were involved in the case as third parties not making independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute. .
By a court ruling dated February 26, 2015, the state committee’s request to merge cases No. A74-46/2014, A74-47/2014 and A74/45/2014 into one proceeding was granted, and the combined case was assigned number No. A74-46/2015.
By the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Khakassia dated March 25, 2015, the stated claims were denied.
The State Committee appealed to the Third Arbitration Court of Appeal, in which it asks to cancel the court decision and adopt a new judicial act.
The applicant of the appeal does not agree with the conclusion of the department about the violation by the authorized body of paragraphs 1.2 of part 1 of Article 33, paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 64 of the Law on the Contract System in connection with the indication in the auction documentation in position 8 of the “Bill of Materials” of the technical specification “grinding paper two-layer with a grain size of 40-25".
The State Committee points out that when establishing this requirement for the material used, it was guided by GOST 13344-79 Waterproof fabric sanding paper, approved by the USSR State Standards Decree of September 13, 1979 No. 3555 (hereinafter referred to as GOST 13344-79), therefore in the technical specifications it established a grain size range of 40- 25, the letter designations refer to the material of the sanding paper and do not characterize its grain size.
The State Committee believes that establishing a requirement for the grain size of the abrasive paper “40-N/25-P” or “40-N”, as proposed by the antimonopoly authority, would lead to a limitation in the ability of procurement participants to formulate an application, given that the abrasive paper can be made from other materials or mixtures thereof.
In this regard, the State Committee believes that the actions of the commission of the authorized body were correct, which rejected the first parts of the auction applications, in which the grain size index was indicated as 40-25, that is, the specific grain size index of the abrasive paper was not determined.
Also, the State Committee does not agree with the department’s conclusion that the authorized body violated Part 5 of Article 31 of the Law on the Contract System, since the notice it posted about the auction in electronic form on the official website htrr://zakupki.gov.ru complies with the provisions of paragraph 3 of Part 5 of the article 63 of the Law on the Contract System, which contains special legal rules on the content of such a notice in relation to the general rules of Part 5 of Article 31 of the said law.
The antimonopoly authority, in its response to the appeal, did not agree with the arguments set out in it, asking that the court decision be left unchanged and the appeal not satisfied.
Third parties are notified of the time and place of consideration of the appeal in accordance with the requirements of articles of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation by sending copies of the ruling dated May 12, 2015 on scheduling a court hearing to the persons participating in the case, the ruling dated May 15, 2015 on satisfying the petition for participation in court hearing by using video conferencing, as well as by publicly posting these determinations on the Internet on the website of the Federal Arbitration Courts of the Russian Federation at http://www.kad.arbitr.ru, they did not send their representatives to the court hearing.
In accordance with the article of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the appeal is considered in the absence of representatives of third parties.
The appeal is considered in the manner established by Chapter 34 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
When considering this case, the appellate court established the following circumstances that are significant for the consideration of the dispute.
On September 18, 2014, the State Committee posted information on the holding of an auction in electronic form on the official website http://zakupki.gov.ru and on the electronic platform of RTS-Tender LLC for the current repair of boxes No. 6, 7 and 16 of the hospital, the auction documentation was approved by the acting chairman of the state committee, O.D. Ivanova, the state customer is the hospital, the initial (maximum) contract price was 441,033 rubles 26 kopecks.
On 10/02/2014 and 10/06/2014, the antimonopoly authority received complaints from RIO LLC, the Dinal company, and an entrepreneur about the actions of the auction commission of the authorized body when conducting the specified open auction in electronic form. The complaints were assigned numbers No. 191/KS, 193/KS, 196/KS. The complainants indicated that the auction commission of the state committee unlawfully rejected their first parts of the auction bids.
The applications of RIO LLC and the Dinal company were rejected on the basis of clause 1 of part 4 of article 67 of the Law on the contract system, since in the first part of the application for item 8 (grinding paper) the list of materials used in the performance of work did not indicate specific indicators, corresponding to the values established by the auction documentation.
The entrepreneur’s application was rejected on the basis of clause 1 of part 4 of article 67 of the Law on the contract system, since in the first part of the application for positions 1 (tiles) and 2 (paint (alkyd)) in the list of materials used in the work, specific indicators corresponding to the values are not indicated established by the auction documentation.
Based on the results of the consideration of complaints, the procurement control commission in decisions dated October 09, 2014 recognized the complaints of RIO LLC, the Dinal company and the entrepreneur as unfounded (paragraph 1 of the decisions).
When considering complaints, the commission of the antimonopoly authority examined the first parts of applications for participation in electronic auction No. 0380200000114004242 for their compliance with GOST 13344-79, based on the results of which it was concluded that the values submitted by auction participants for item 8 (grinding paper) of the list used in the execution of the work of materials cannot be considered specific indicators of a two-layer sandpaper, therefore the auction commission unlawfully allowed applications of other participants numbered 1, 2, 4, 5 to participate in the electronic auction.
In this regard, the department of paragraphs 3 of the decisions of 10/09/2014 recognized the auction commission of the authorized body as violating paragraph 2 of part 4 of article 67 of the Law on the contract system.
Based on the results of an unscheduled inspection, the antimonopoly authority, in paragraphs 3 of decisions dated 10/09/2014, found the authorized body to have violated Part 5 of Article 31 of the Law on the Contract System, since the notice of the auction did not indicate the requirements for procurement participants established in the information card of the auction documentation, and also clauses 1, 2 of part 1 of Article 33 and clause 1 of part 1 of Article 64 of the Law on the Contract System, since in the auction documentation the specific characteristics of the two-layer sanding paper are indicated in violation of GOST 13344-79, which misled the auction participants.
Based on paragraph 4 of the decision on complaint No. 191/KS, an order was issued to eliminate violations of the legislation on the contract system, which in paragraph 1 ordered the authorized body to:
a) cancel protocol No. 1 of the consideration of the first parts of applications for participation in the electronic auction dated September 30, 2014, protocol No. 2 of summing up the results of auctions in electronic form dated October 6, 2014;
b) post information about the cancellation of protocols on the official website;
c) make changes to the auction documentation in electronic form (purchase No. 0380200000114004242) in accordance with the decision of the management commission No. 191/KS dated 10/09/2014;
d) continue the procedure for identifying a supplier in accordance with legal requirements.
By paragraphs 4 of the decisions of 09.10.2014 on complaints No. 193/KS, 196/KS, the management commission decided not to issue orders to the state committee to eliminate violations of the legislation on the contract system in the field of procurement, since it was issued under complaint No. 191/KS.
The State Committee challenged in court the decisions of the antimonopoly authority on complaint No. 191/KS in terms of paragraphs 2, 3, 4, on complaints No. 193/KS and No. 196/KS in terms of paragraphs 2.3, paragraph 1 of the order dated 10/09/2014 on the complaint No. 191/KS, indicating that in the auction documentation the grain characteristics of the two-layer sandpaper are indicated in accordance with the provisions of GOST 13344-79, the auction notice complies with the requirements of paragraph 6 of part 5 of Article 63 of the Law on the Contract System.
Having examined the evidence presented, heard and assessed the arguments of the persons participating in the case, the appellate court came to the following conclusions.
In accordance with the article of the Russian Federation, articles, Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, legal proceedings are carried out on the basis of adversarial and equality of the parties. According to the article of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, each person participating in the case must prove the circumstances to which he refers as the basis for his claims and objections.
According to the article Section III. Proceedings in the arbitration court of first instance in cases arising from administrative and other public legal relations > Chapter 24. Consideration of cases challenging non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) of state bodies, local government bodies, other bodies, organizations vested with separate functions by federal law state or other public powers, officials > Article 201. Arbitration court decision in the case of challenging non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) of bodies exercising public powers, officials" target="_blank">201 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation In order to recognize contested acts as invalid, two conditions must be present simultaneously - their non-compliance with the law and their violation of the rights and legally protected interests of the applicant in the field of business activity.
The court of first instance, on the basis of the provisions of paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 99 of the Law on the Contract System, paragraph 2 of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated August 26, 2013 No. 728 “On determining the powers of federal executive authorities in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to provide state and municipal needs and on amendments to certain acts of the Government of the Russian Federation", paragraphs 1, 4, 5.3.9 of the Regulations on the Federal Antimonopoly Service, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated June 30, 2004 No. 331, paragraph 4.1.7 of the Regulations on the territorial body of the FAS Russia, approved by order of the FAS Russia dated January 26, 2011 No. 30, Appendix No. 2 to the said order, paragraphs 1.3, 3.1 – 3.5, 3.32, 3.35, 3.37 of the Administrative Regulations of the FAS Russia for the performance of the state function of considering complaints about the actions (inaction) of the customer, the authorized body , a specialized organization, a competitive, auction or quotation commission, an operator of an electronic platform when placing an order for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services, including when placing orders for energy services, for state, municipal needs, the needs of budgetary institutions, approved by order of the FAS Russia dated July 24, 2012 No. 498, correctly recognized that the commission of the antimonopoly authority, when considering the complaint and making the contested decisions and orders, acted within the powers provided for by the current legislation.
At the same time, the period and procedure for considering complaints against the actions of the authorized body and its auction commission by the antimonopoly body, established by Article 106 of the Law on the Contract System, were observed.
The arbitration court found the state committee to have violated the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 of part 1 of Article 33, paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 64 of the Law on the Contract System, since the grit range of 40–25 established in the auction documentation does not comply with the requirements of GOST 13344-79 in relation to two-layer sandpaper and does not allow us to correlate which of the layers, upper or lower, this indicator is given.
Clause 1 of Part 1 of Article 64 of the Law on the Contract System stipulates that the documentation on the electronic auction, along with the information specified in the notice of such an auction, must contain, inter alia, the name and description of the procurement object and the terms of the contract in accordance with Article 33 of this Federal law.
According to paragraphs 1, 2 of part 1 of Article 33 of the Law on the Contract System in the procurement documentation, the description of the procurement object must be objective; must contain functional, technical and quality characteristics, operational characteristics of the procurement object (if necessary).
The customer must use, if possible, when drawing up a description of the procurement object, standard indicators, requirements, symbols and terminology relating to the technical and qualitative characteristics of the procurement object, established in accordance with technical regulations, standards and other requirements provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation on technical regulation . If the customer does not use such standard indicators, requirements, symbols and terminology when describing the procurement object, the procurement documentation must contain a justification for the need to use other indicators, requirements, symbols and terminology.
In the technical specifications of the auction documentation for item 8 of the bill of materials, two-layer sandpaper with a grain size of 40-25 is indicated. The applicant indicates that when describing the specified material, including the grain size of the sandpaper, he was guided by GOST 13344-79.
GOST 13344-79 applies to waterproof fabric sandpaper intended for abrasive processing of various materials with and without the use of a cutting fluid based on water, oil, kerosene, etc.
GOST 13344-79 establishes the grain size of sandpaper, which, taking into account the range of grain size of the sandpaper defined in the auction documentation, corresponds to grain size of 40, 32, and 25.
At the same time, the auction documentation specifies a two-layer sandpaper as a material, therefore, each layer of sandpaper has a grain size index.
In this regard, the court of first instance justifiably made reference to an example of a symbol for a waterproof fabric two-layer sandpaper with grain sizes 40-N and 25-P, given in GOST 13344-79, in which the symbol for the grain size of a specific two-layer sandpaper is presented as 40-N/ 25-P, and admitted that the grain size of a two-layer skin is indicated through the sign “/”.
Thus, the description of the procurement object in item 8 of the bill of materials does not correspond to the symbol established by the technical standard.
The State Committee believes that in accordance with Section 5 “Marking, packaging, transportation and storage” of GOST 13344-79, the grain size of the bottom layer must be indicated on a two-layer skin, therefore it is sufficient to indicate in the auction documentation in relation to the skin only the grain size of the bottom layer and, accordingly, in the specified The customer's grain range includes 40, 32, 25.
The court of first instance correctly rejected this argument as based on an incorrect interpretation of the requirements of the state standard, since in section 5 of GOST 13344-79 the requirement to indicate the grain size of the bottom layer on a two-layer sandpaper refers to the marking of the product, but does not negate the presence of the grain characteristics of both layers of sandpaper.
In this case, when approving the auction documentation, the authorized body did not determine the grain characteristics of each layer of two-layer abrasive paper; the grain size indicators given in the auction documentation did not meet the requirements of GOST 13344-79 in terms of symbols of the technical and quality characteristics of the abrasive paper and did not allow procurement participants determine which sandpaper grit characteristics are established for each of the two layers and in what order these characteristics should be reflected in the auction application.
This violation led to the fact that in the auction bids the purchasing participants indicated the grain characteristics of the two-layer sandpaper as either “25”, or “40-25”, or “40”, or “30”.
Under such circumstances, the appellate court agrees with the court’s conclusion on the legality of the contested management decisions in terms of declaring the committee to have violated paragraphs 1, 2 of part 1 of Article 33, paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 64 of the Law on the Contract System.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of part 4 of article 67 of the Law on the contract system, a participant in an electronic auction is not allowed to participate in it if the information provided for in part 3 of article 66 of this Federal Law does not comply with the requirements of the documentation for such an auction.
According to subparagraph “b” of paragraph 1 of part 3 of Article 66 of the Law on the Contract System, the first part of the application must contain specific indicators corresponding to the values established by the documentation for such an auction.
In the participants’ proposals there is no indication of the grain size of one of the layers; it is impossible to correlate the designations “25”, “40-25”, “40”, “30” as a range of grain size of one of the layers or an indication of the grain size of two layers. In this regard, the auction commission, in accordance with paragraph 2 of part 4 of Article 67 of the Law on the Contract System, had to decide to refuse admission to participation in the electronic auction No. 0380200000114004242 of all participants in this procurement, since the first parts of their applications for participation in the auction were not contained the grain size indicators of each layer of two-layer sandpaper.
Also, the court of first instance indicated that the auction commission of the state committee should not have allowed the first parts of applications to participate in the auction due to the lack of letter designation of the grain sizes of two layers. In this case, the court proceeded from the fact that, in accordance with the provisions of GOST 13344-79, GOST 3647-80 and GOST R 52381-2005, the grain size for sanding paper has a symbol, which is a number and a letter index.
The appellate court takes into account that the letter designations “P” and “N”, in accordance with paragraph 2.4 of GOST 13344-79, refer to the grain composition of abrasive materials, the auction documentation does not establish requirements for the grain composition of a two-layer abrasive paper, and the symbols were not applied to the characteristics of the grain size of the sandpaper, established by GOST R 52381-2005, therefore, procurement participants were not obliged to indicate in the first parts of the application the letter designations of the grain composition of the two-layer sandpaper, as well as the symbols of grain size in accordance with GOST R 52381-2005.
However, this conclusion of the court did not lead to the adoption of an incorrect decision in terms of refusal to recognize as illegal the contested management decisions on violation of the auction commission of the authorized body of paragraph 2 of part 4 of Article 67 of the Law on the Contract System.
Also, the antimonopoly authority found the state committee to have violated Part 5 of Article 31 of the Law on the Contract System due to the fact that the notice of an open auction in electronic form does not contain information about the established requirements in accordance with paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 of Part 1 the specified article.
The court of first instance, refusing to recognize management decisions in this part as illegal, proceeded from the fact that the requirements for procurement participants provided for in paragraphs 3,4,5,7 and 9 of part 1 of Article 31 of the Law on the Contract System were indicated in the open auction information card in electronic form, therefore they should have been contained in the notice of the said auction.
According to Part 5 of Article 31 of the Contract System Law, information about the established requirements in accordance with Parts 1, 1.1 and 2 of this article is indicated by the customer in the procurement notice and procurement documentation.
Article 63 of the Contract System Law contains requirements for notification of an electronic auction.
In accordance with paragraph 6 of part 5 of the said article, in the notice of an electronic auction, the customer indicates the requirements for participants in such an auction and an exhaustive list of documents that must be submitted by participants in such an auction in accordance with paragraph 1 of part 1 and part 2 (if any such requirements) Article 31 of this Federal Law, as well as the requirement imposed on participants in such an auction in accordance with Part 1.1 (if there is such a requirement) of Article 31 of this Federal Law.
In paragraph 20 of the information card of the auction documentation, approved by the authorized body, requirements are presented to auction participants in electronic form in accordance with paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 of part 1 of article 31 of the Law on the contract system.
Consequently, the specified requirements for auction participants in accordance with Part 5 of Article 31, Clause 6 of Part 5 of Article 63 of the Law on the Contract System must be indicated in the notice of the auction, but this obligation was not fulfilled by the authorized body.
The argument of the appeal that the notice of the auction complies with the provisions of paragraph 3 of part 5 of article 63 of the Law on the contract system, which contains special legal rules on the content of such a notice in relation to the general rules of part 5 of article 31 of the said law, is based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules of material rights, since in paragraph 3 of part 5 of article 63 of the Law on the contract system, the reference to paragraph 1 of part 1 and part 2 of article 31 of the said law refers to the list of documents that must be submitted by auction participants.
Taking into account the presence in the electronic notice of a reference only to clause 1 of part 1 of Article 31 of the Law on the Contract System, and also that the electronic notice does not contain requirements for participants in auction No. 0380200000114004242 established in the information card in accordance with clauses 3, 4, 5 , 7, 9 of part 1 of the said article, the arbitration court of the first instance made the correct conclusion that the state committee in the situation under consideration violated part 5 of article 31 of the Law on the contract system.
Under such circumstances, the provisions of Article Section III were absent. Proceedings in the arbitration court of first instance in cases arising from administrative and other public legal relations > Chapter 24. Consideration of cases challenging non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) of state bodies, local government bodies, other bodies, organizations vested with separate functions by federal law state or other public powers, officials > Article 201. Arbitration court decision in the case of challenging non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) of bodies exercising public powers, officials" target="_blank">201 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation grounds for declaring illegal the contested decisions of the antimonopoly body in terms of violation by the state committee of part 5 of article 31, paragraphs 1, 2 of part 1 of article 33 and paragraph 1 of part 1 of article 64 of the Law on the contract system, by the auction commission of the authorized body - paragraph 2 of part 4 of article 67 of the said law .
The court of first instance made the correct conclusion about the legality of the antimonopoly authority's order dated October 9, 2014 on complaint No. 191/KS, since it complies with the provisions of parts 22 and 23 of Article 99 of the Law on the Contract System, and is aimed at eliminating the above-mentioned provisions of the Law on the Contract System, which were admitted by the State Committee, contains instructions on specific actions that must be performed by persons to whom the order has been issued.
Based on the results of the consideration of the appeal, no grounds were established provided for by the article of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation for canceling or changing the court decision.
The State Committee, in accordance with subparagraph 1.1 of paragraph 1 of Article of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, is exempt from paying state fees, therefore state fees for consideration of the case in the first and appellate instances are not subject to payment.
Guided by the articles of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the Third Arbitration Court of Appeal
DECIDED:
the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Khakassia dated March 25, 2015 in case No. A74-46/2015 is left unchanged, the appeal is not satisfied.
This resolution comes into force from the moment of its adoption and can be appealed within two months to the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District through the court that made the decision.
Presiding
G.N. Borisov
ON THE. Morozova
Court:
3 AAC (Third Arbitration Court of Appeal)Plaintiffs:
State Committee for the Placement of State Orders of the Russian FederationDefendants:
Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Republic of KhakassiaOnce you understand the sandpaper production technology, you can easily select the sheet you need. Conventionally, it is divided into three groups: coarse-grained, medium-grained and close to zero for finishing. There are other subtleties, without taking them into account, you can ruin the material or abrasive.
Selecting grain size. From removing old paint to polishing glass items
There are markings on the back of the sandpaper, but they may vary depending on the manufacturer and year. It is better to buy it by inspecting it in person, rather than trusting inexperienced people or ordering it on the Internet. If this is not possible, rely on a combination of indicators rather than numbers. Since the same grain size can be designated by three different markings: P 800-21.8, 400-23 and J 700-21. We will indicate all the options in the table.
Table No. 1. Grain markings
| USSR | Modern marking | Purpose | ||||
| GOST-3647-80 | Size, microns | Educational materials are not flexible | Size, microns | Flexible educational materials | Size, microns | |
| F 4 | 4890 | Rough cleaning of seams or removal of old coating | ||||
| F 5 | 4125 | |||||
| F 6 | 3460 | |||||
| F 7 | 2900 | |||||
| 200 | 2500/2000 | F 8 | 2460 | |||
| F10 | 2085 | |||||
| 160 | 2000/1600 | F12 | 1765 | P 12 | 1815 | |
| 125 | 1600/1250 | F 14 | 1470 | |||
| 100 | 1250/1000 | F 16 | 1230 | P 16 | 1324 | |
| F 20 | 1040 | P 20 | 1000 | |||
| 80 | 1000/800 | F 22 | 885 | |||
| 63 | 800/630 | F 24 | 745 | P 24 (24) | 764 (708) | Leveling the surface |
| 50 | 630/500 | F 30 | 625 | P 30 (30) | 642 (632) | |
| F 36 | 525 | P 36 (36) | 538 (530) | |||
| 40 | 500/400 | F 40 | 438 | P 40 (40) | 425 (425) | |
| 32 | 400/315 | F 46 | 370 | |||
| 25 | 315/250 | F 54 | 310 | 60 | 265 | |
| F 60 | 260 | P 60 | 269 | |||
| 20 | 250/200 | F 70 | 218 | P 80 | 201 | |
| 16 | 200/160 | F 80 | 185 | P 100 (80) | 162 (190) | |
| 12 | 160/125 | F 90 | 154 | Rough grinding of the surface to remove scratches | ||
| F 100 | 129 | P120 (120) | 125 (115) | |||
| 10 | 125/100 | F 120 | 109 | P 150 (150) | 100 (92) | |
| 8 | 100/80 | F 150 | 82 | P 180 (180) | 82 (82) | |
| 6 | 80/63 (80-63) | F 180 | 69 | P 220 (220) | 68 (68) | |
| 5 M63 | 63/50 (63-50) | F 220 | 58 | P240 (240) | 58,5 (58,5) | |
| F 230 | 53 | P 280 (J 280) | 52,2 (52) | |||
| 4 M50 | 50/40 (50-40) | F 240 | 44,5 | P 320 (J 320) | 46,2 (46) | |
| P 360 (J 360) | 40,5 (40) | |||||
| M 40 | 40/28 (40-28) | F 280 | 36,5 | P 400 (320 or J 400) | 35 (36 or 34) | Removing traces of rough grinding, sharpening metal for a blade |
| F 320 | 29,2 | P 500 (360 J 500) | 30,2 (28) | |||
| M 28 | 28/20 (28-20) | F 360 | 22,8 | P 600 (J600) | 25,8 (24) | |
| P 800 (400 J 700) | 21,8 (23 21) | |||||
| M 20 | 20/14 (20-14) | F 400 | 17,3 | P 1000 (500 J 800) | 18,3 (20 18) | |
| P 1200 (600 J 1000) | 15,3 (16 15,5) | |||||
| M 14 | 14/10 (14-10) | F 500 | 12,8 | P 1500 (800, J 1200) | 12,6 (12,6, 13) | Final polishing of products to perfect condition, processing of the blade after sharpening |
| P 2000 (1000, J 1500) | 10,3 (10,3, 10,5) | |||||
| M 7 | 10/7 (10-7) | F 600 | 9,3 | P 2500 | 8,4 | |
| M5 | 7/5 (7-5) | F 800 | 6,5 | 1200 (J 2000) | 5,5 (6,7) | |
| J 2500 | 5,5 | |||||
| M 3 | 5/3 (5-3) | F 1000 | 4,5 | J 3000 | 4 | |
| 3/2 (3-2) | F 1200 | 3 | J 4000 | 3 | ||
| 2/1 (2-1) | F 1500 | 2 | J 6000 | 2 | ||
| F 2000 | 1,2 | J 8000 | 1,2 | |||
| 1/0,5 (1-0,5) | ||||||
| 0,5/0,1 (0,5-0,3) | ||||||
| 0,3/0,1 (0,3-0,1) | ||||||
| 0.1 and< | ||||||
In all situations, choose at least three variations and start with the largest grain and end with the finest.
Material processing options:
- glass, plastic and stone use the wet grinding method, so choose sheets with a moisture-resistant base. If there are chips, start with 3 thousand microns, for light scratches with 1500 microns. Next, move on to 1 thousand or 600 microns and finish with 100 or 30 microns. To add gloss, GOI paste is used. Lenses, lenses or screens have more gentle compositions;
- wooden and plaster surfaces - it is better to choose smaller fractions so as not to leave deep scratches. You can start with 1 thousand microns and end with 30 and below;
- iron - polished in different sizes, depending on the task. To give the desired shape, take the coarsest fractions from 4890 microns and finish with zeros. As a rule, 4-5 intermediate options are used. Large abrasives cannot be used for soft metals such as gold and tin;
- surface painted with water-based paint - complete sanding with sandpaper with a fraction close to zero. Otherwise it will show all the small scratches.
Be careful not to confuse type and microns. If the marking shows from F4 to F22, this is coarse sandpaper, but its grain size is measured only in microns and is equal to from 4890 to 885 microns. When choosing, it is better to name the grain size, 1 µm = 0.001 mm.
Pros and cons of different foundations
Some bases are not suitable for use in a humid environment, others are elastic and bend well around curls, there is a particularly strong base or, conversely, soft on thin paper and inexpensive.
The most common basics:
- paper ones are inexpensive, do not stretch and come in all types of grains, but they are not strong enough. It can be waterproof, but these properties are inferior to fabric;
- fabric - elasticity is their main plus and minus. On the one hand, the base easily takes the shape of any product, on the other hand, the abrasive crumbles when stretched strongly. Durable and moisture resistant, but expensive;
- fiber - most often made for discs, but are indispensable when processing stone. It is used for very hard materials;
- combined - layers of fabric and paper are glued together and an abrasive is applied to the base. It has the advantages of paper and fabric, but has a high price.
The base also has its own markings, which can be seen on the article number or the back side. The values can be viewed in the table.
Table No. 2. Marking of basics
Types and methods of applying abrasive
When choosing, pay attention to the type of application; some of them are more suitable for products with a fragile surface, others for grinding hard materials.
Table No. 3. Marking of application type
| Marking | Type of application |
| 1 | Open application |
| 3 | Stearate coating |
| 4 | Closed type of application |
Coating by application method:
- by open filling - 60% of the area is covered. Thanks to the voids, it is suitable for crushing material; shavings and gypsum pour out through them. This skin is less likely to become clogged;
- closed filling - the abrasive covers the blade 100%. They are chosen for metal processing, since when used on a soft surface it quickly becomes clogged;
- mechanical method - less uniform application due to the use of gravity. The particles fall in different directions;
- using electrostatics - the sharpest sanding layers are created. The impact of an electrostatic field on each particle turns them with their tip in one direction.
The abrasive is glued to the surface with resins and glue. Some of them have waterproof or antistatic properties.
Each abrasive has its own tasks
A soft abrasive will not help when processing glass or stone, but a very hard abrasive will make deep grooves on plastic or putty. Typically, the sharpest materials are used to roughly remove a layer or give shape, and soft ones are used to level and give smoothness.
Most often you can find the following materials:
- diamond is the most durable and sharpest material, but expensive;
- garnet is harder than aluminum oxide, but wears out faster. Most often used for wood;
- quartz - known as “skin glass” due to its frequent use in optics and ceramics;
- aluminum oxide (emery) - with strong friction it is renewed due to chips that form new edges;
- Silicon carbide is the sharpest and most affordable, replacing diamond chips in its properties. Used for metal, ceramics and paint removal;
- electrocorundum - differs from aluminum oxide in greater strength, as it is alloyed with titanium, aluminum or chromium.
If it is impossible to determine the material externally, rely on the letter markings.
Table No. 4. Marking of abrasive
Homemade sanding sheets according to old recipes
The first sandpaper appeared not in 1833, but thousands of years ago. Residents of coastal areas used shark skin or boiled glue on fish scales. Next, they smeared it on pieces of leather or fabric and sprinkled it with sand. Craftsmen living far from the coast extracted glue from the bones and veins of animals or used tree resin.
To change the effect on the treated surface, craftsmen made several versions of the canvas. Some sheets contained crushed gemstones, others sand, and still others ground shells or plant seeds. To process large stones or objects, metal plates were created, onto the hot surface of which an abrasive was applied.
Modern sheets are produced with the same type of markings, accepted throughout the world. Old sandpaper inherited or purchased on the construction market may differ greatly from accepted standards, so better focus on the appearance, this will help to avoid mistakes.
5. The validity period was lifted according to the protocol of the Interstate Council for Standardization, Metrology and Certification (IUS 11-12-94)
6. EDITION (July 2003) with Amendments No. 1, 2, 3, approved in February 1983, June 1985, July 1989 (IUS 6-83, 9-85, 11-89)
This standard applies to waterproof cloth abrasives intended for abrasive processing of various materials with and without the use of a cutting fluid based on water, oil, kerosene, etc.
1. TYPES AND SIZES
1. TYPES AND SIZES
1.1. Sanding paper should be made of the following types:
1 - for machine and manual processing of wood, plastics, varnish coatings and alloys with low hardness;
2 - for machine and manual processing of hard and highly viscous metals and alloys.
1.2. (Deleted, Amendment No. 1).
1.3. Sanding paper should be made of the following types:
O - single-layer;
D - two-layer.
1.4. Sanding paper must be produced in rolls, the sizes and grain sizes of which must correspond to those indicated in Table 1.
Table 1
Type of sanding paper | Grain | Width, mm | Length, mm |
600; 725; 745; | |||
725; 745; 775; |
Notes:
1. At the customer’s request, it is allowed to produce rolls with a width of more than 840 mm and a length of more than 30 m.
2. At the customer’s request, it is allowed to produce sanding paper from other grades and grain sizes of abrasive materials or mixtures thereof.
An example of a symbol for a waterproof fabric two-layer sanding paper type 2, 820 mm wide, 20 m long, on a fabric base made of plain-dyed weighted twill, from green silicon carbide grade 63C, grit size 40-N and 25-P, on phenol-formaldehyde resin:
D2 820x20 UG 63S 40-N/25-P SFZh GOST 13344-79
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 1, 2, 3).
2. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
2.1. The sanding paper should be made of normal electrocorundum grades 15A, 14A and 13A; white electrocorundum grades 25A, 24A and 23A; black silicon carbide grades 55C, 54C and 53C; green silicon carbide grades 64C and 63C.
2.2. To make sanding paper, fabrics should be used in accordance with GOST 3357, GOST 19196, special durable twill (SP), medium twill N 1 plain-dyed (S1G), weighted twill (UG), semi-double-thread plain-dyed (P).
Notes:
1. The use of other fabrics, including synthetic fibers, is allowed.
2. If the fabric does not have an established symbol, it is allowed to indicate the fabric article in the symbol of the skin.
2.3. The grinding material must be firmly bonded to the base with phenol-formaldehyde resin grades SFZh-3038 and SFZh-3039 according to GOST 20907, varnish grade YAN-153 according to normative and technical documentation (NTD).
Note. It is permissible to use other ligaments whose physical and mechanical properties are no worse than those indicated.
2.4. The grain composition of grinding materials is in accordance with GOST 3647 with indices P and N.
Note. At the customer's request, it is allowed to use grinding materials with a main fraction content of 65% or more.
2.5. (Deleted, Amendment No. 3).
2.6. On the working surface of the sanding paper, the total area of wrinkles, folds, areas without abrasive grains, filled with a binder, should not exceed 0.5% of the roll area for grits 25 and 20.
For skins of other grain sizes, the total area of these defects should be no more than 1% of the roll area.
In a roll of skins, edges with a width of more than 10 mm with defects are not allowed.
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 3).
2.7. (Deleted, Amendment No. 1).
2.8. The uneven thickness of the sanding paper should correspond to the values indicated in Table 3.
Table 3*
______________________
*Table 2. (Deleted, Amendment No. 1).
Grain | Thickness unevenness, mm, no more |
8 and smaller |
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 1).
2.9. The tensile strength and elongation of the air-dry sandpaper should correspond to the values indicated in Table 4.
Table 4
Fabric designation | Breaking load, N, not less, in directions | Elongation at break in the longitudinal direction, %, no more |
|
longitudinal | transverse | ||
Note. The values of breaking load and elongation of fabrics not provided for in Table 4 must be no less than for fabric P.
2.10. Indicators of the strength of fixation of abrasive grains are indicated in Appendix 2.
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 3).
2.11. The cutting ability of the sanding paper under the grinding conditions specified in Appendix 1 must correspond to the values specified in Table 5.
Table 5
Grain | Cutting capacity, mm/min, not less |
|
silicon carbide | electrocorundum |
|
2.12. The water resistance coefficient (the ratio of the cutting ability of sandpaper soaked in water to the cutting ability of dry sandpaper) must be at least 0.75.
2.11-2.12. (Introduced additionally, Amendment No. 3).
3. ACCEPTANCE RULES
3.1. To monitor compliance of the abrasive paper with the requirements of this standard, acceptance inspection and periodic testing are carried out.
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 3).
3.2. At least 1% of rolls of abrasive paper from the batch, but not less than 3 pcs., according to paragraph 2.11 - 0.1%, but not less than 3 pcs.
The batch must consist of rolls of skins of the same characteristics, produced in one shift and simultaneously presented for acceptance according to one document.
3.3. If during acceptance control it is determined that there is non-compliance with the requirements of the standard for more than one controlled indicator, then the batch is not accepted.
If non-compliance with the requirements of the standard is established for one of the controlled indicators, then repeated control is carried out on a double number of rolls of abrasive paper. If there are defects in the re-sampling, the batch will not be accepted.
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 3).
3.4. Products (one of the roll sizes) that have passed the acceptance control must be subjected to periodic testing for compliance with the requirements of clauses 2.8 and 2.12 of at least 0.5% of the batch of rolls, but not less than 3 pcs., according to clause 2.9 - at least 0, 5% rolls of 40/25 grit sandpaper; 40; 25; 8; 5 and 4, but not less than 3 pcs., according to clause 2.9 - on all types of fabrics.
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 1, 3).
3.5. Periodic testing must be carried out at least once a year.
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 3).
4. CONTROL AND TEST METHODS
4.1. Test methods - according to GOST 6456.
Control of tensile strength and elongation - according to GOST 27181.
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 1, 3).
4.2. The method for determining the cutting ability of abrasive paper, as well as the strength of abrasive grains and the water resistance coefficient are specified in Appendix 1.
5. LABELING, PACKAGING, TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE
5.1. On the non-working surface of the roll the following must be clearly marked no more than every 150 mm in the transverse and longitudinal directions:
b) symbol of the sanding paper (without designations of type, type, size);
c) batch number.
Notes.
1. (Deleted, Amendment No. 1).
2. On a two-layer sandpaper, the grain size of the bottom layer should be indicated. For example, when making a two-layer skin with a grain size of 40-N/25-P, the grain size of the bottom layer is indicated as 40-N.
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 1, 3).
5.2. Winding the sanding paper into rolls should be tight and even, preventing the formation of wrinkles, folds and crumpled areas.
The end surface must be smooth, the projections of the edges must not exceed 20 mm. When installing the roll at the end, the protruding edges should not be wrinkled by more than 7 mm.
5.3. Rolls of sanding paper must be wrapped in paper in accordance with GOST 8273 and GOST 2228 or other packaging materials. Layers of packaging paper must reliably cover the ends of the rolls and ensure the preservation of the rolls of skins during transportation.
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 3).
5.4. The packaged roll must be labeled or stamped with clearly marked information:
a) trademark of the manufacturer;
b) symbol of the sanding paper;
c) release date and batch number;
d) technical control stamp.
Note. A roll of sanding paper made using YAN-153 varnish or similar materials must be affixed with a label indicating storage and transportation conditions.
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 1).
5.5-5.11. (Excluded, Amendment No. 3).
5.12. Other requirements for labeling and packaging, as well as transportation and storage, are in accordance with GOST 27595.
(Introduced additionally, Amendment No. 3).
Section 6. (Deleted, Amendment No. 3).
APPENDIX 1 (mandatory). METHOD FOR DETERMINING CUTTING ABILITY, INDICATORS OF STRENGTH OF ABRASIVE GRAINS AND WATER RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT
ANNEX 1
Mandatory
1. Equipment and materials
1.1. Device for testing PSSh-3.
1.2. Technical scales with a weighing error of no more than 0.01 g.
1.3. Samples of sanding paper 680 mm long and 20 mm wide.
1.4. A rod made of calibrated steel grade 45 according to GOST 1051 with a diameter of 10 mm and a length of 250-300 mm.
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 1).
2. Preparation for the test
2.1. Edge and weigh a sample of abrasive paper.
2.2. Attach a sample of sanding paper to a metal disk with a diameter of 100 mm and the sanding rod in the chuck holder.
The grinding rod must be inclined in the opposite direction of the rotation of the disk so that the end of the rod is flat after grinding. For this purpose, grinding is carried out with 12-grit sandpaper from normal electrocorundum for 15 s at a radial load of 19.6 N, a rod rotation speed of 36 min, and a grinding speed of 15 m/s.
2.1, 2.2. (Changed edition, Amendment No. 1).
3. Carrying out the test
3.1. Set the test modes indicated in the table.
Grain | Grinding speed, m/s | Rod rotation frequency, min | Duration of the grinding cycle, s | Durability criterion - minimum metal removal per cycle, mm |
|
4; 5; M63; M50; M40 | |||||
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 3).
3.2. Perform grinding.
3.3. Measure the length of the ground section of the rod with a caliper with an error of 0.05 mm.
3.4. Cool the rod to room temperature or replace it with another one.
3.5. Repeat operations according to paragraphs 3.2-3.4 until the durability criterion of the abrasive paper is achieved in accordance with the table.
3.2-3.5. (Changed edition, Amendment No. 1).
3.6. Remove and weigh a sample of abrasive paper.
4. Processing of test results
4.1. Cutting capacity, mm/min, is determined by the formula
where is the length of the ground reference rod for the 1st grinding cycle, mm;
- duration of the grinding cycle, s.
4.2. The indicator of the strength of fixation of abrasive grains of sandpaper, mm/g, is determined by the formula
where is the length of the ground reference rod, mm;
- number of cycles until the durability criterion is achieved;
- difference in mass of the sanding paper sample before and after testing, g.
4.3. The cutting ability and index of fastening strength of abrasive grains are determined as the arithmetic average of three tests.
4.1-4.3. (Changed edition, Amendment No. 1).
4.4. The water resistance coefficient is determined by testing a dry sandpaper sample and a sandpaper sample kept in water at a temperature of (60±3) °C for 2 hours.
(Introduced additionally, Amendment No. 1).
APPENDIX 2 (for reference). INDICATORS OF STRENGTH OF FIXING ABRASIVE GRAINS AND WATER RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT OF GRINDING FELLET
APPENDIX 2
Information
1. Indicators of the strength of fastening of the abrasive grains of the sanding paper (the ratio of the removed material of the reference rod to the mass of the working layer destroyed to the base) must correspond to the values indicated in the table.
Type of abrasive material | Grain | Strength indicator, mm/g, for sandpaper types |
|
Electrocorundum | 4; 5; M63; M50; M40 | ||
20; 25; 32; 40; 50 | |||
Silicon carbide | 4; 5; M63; M50; M40 | ||
10; 12; 16; 20; 25; 32 | |||
(Changed edition, Amendment No. 3).
2. (Deleted, Amendment No. 3).
Electronic document text
prepared by Kodeks JSC and verified against:
official publication
M.: IPK Standards Publishing House, 2003
Today, JSC Volzhsky Grinding Material-Volga is a seller of a wide range of grinding materials.
Having a direct agreement with OJSC "Volzhsky Abrasive Plant" (JSC "VAZ"), Volzhsky and OJSC "Belgorod Abrasive Plant" (JSC "BAZ"), Belgorod, we are ready to offer you the products listed below from a warehouse in Volzhsky, Volgograd region
In order to expand the range of products, we have the opportunity to carry out custom deliveries of products from the company KWH Mirka Ltd - Finland, which produces flexible grinding materials for high-quality grinding.
1. Waterproof cloth sanding paper
Waterproof fabric sandpaper is used for manual and machine abrasive processing of various materials, including difficult-to-cut ones, with high loads using water-based coolant, oil emulsions, as well as grinding without coolant, coolant based on kerosene and white alcohol cannot be used for grinding to avoid softening of the synthetic waterproof coating on the non-working side of the fabric base and reducing the water resistance of the sandpaper.
Manufacturer:
| Type of skin | Sanding material | |
|---|---|---|
| Grain | Brand | |
| Waterproof cloth sanding paper GOST 13344-79 Roll width 900; 775 mm for grain size 100-63 - rolls of 20 linear. m. for grain size 50-M40 - rolls of 30 linear. m. | P20 (No. 100) | A (14A |
| P24 (No. 80) | A (14A | |
| P30 (No. 63) | A (14A | |
| P36 (No. 50) | A (14A | |
| P40 (No. 40), P50 (No. 32) | A (14A | |
| P 60 (No. 25), P70 (No. 20) | A (14A) | |
| Р80(№16) | A (14A | |
| P100(No. 12). P120(No. 10) | A (14A | |
| P150(No. 8). P180(No. 6) | A (14A) | |
| R 220 (No. 5), R320 (No. 4) | A (14A) | |
| R 400 (No. M40) | A (14A) | |
2. Sanding paper, non-waterproof
Non-waterproof paper sandpaper is used for manual and machine abrasive processing of resinous and soft wood, plastic, hard paint and varnish coatings, car bodies, rubber using coolant based on oil, kerosene, white alcohol, as well as grinding without coolant.
Manufacturer: JSC "Belgorod Abrasive Plant" (JSC "BAZ") Belgorod
3. Waterproof paper sanding paper
Waterproof paper sanding paper is intended for wet and dry sanding of paint and varnish coatings, putties, primers, plastics, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, glass, ceramics, porcelain, rubber, especially suitable for processing car bodies.
Manufacturer: JSC "Belgorod Abrasive Plant" (JSC "BAZ") Belgorod
4. Sanding paper in sheets
Sanding paper in sheets is produced on a paper and fabric basis. Now it is difficult to imagine sanding a wooden surface, performing body work, processing a varnished surface, putty, paint, or metal without the use of sanding paper or sandpaper on a cloth. Sanding paper is produced by applying abrasive grain in an electro-static magnetic field. Elastic waterproof sanding paper Suitable for dry or wet sanding. Sandpaper has a grain size from P60 to P2000, sandpaper on a fabric basis from P600.
Manufacturer: JSC "Belgorod Abrasive Plant" (JSC "BAZ") Belgorod
They are built on the basis of contact symbols: making (Fig. 1, b), breaking (c, d) and switching (d, f). Contacts that simultaneously close or open two circuits are designated as shown in Fig. 1, (w, and and).
The initial position of the closing contacts on the electrical circuits is taken to be the open state of the switched electrical circuit, the breaking contacts are the closed state, and the switching contacts are the position in which one of the circuits is closed and the other is open (with the exception of the contact with the neutral position). The UGO of all contacts can only be depicted in a mirrored or rotated 90° position.
The standardized UGO system also provides for the reflection of such design features as the non-simultaneous operation of one or more contacts in a group, the absence or presence of their fixation in one of the positions.
So, if it is necessary to show that the contact closes or opens earlier than others, the symbol of its moving part is supplemented with a short stroke directed in the direction of operation (Fig. 2, a, b), and if later, with a stroke directed in the opposite direction (Fig. 2, c, d).
The absence of fixation in the closed or open positions (self-return) is indicated by a small triangle, the apex of which is directed towards the initial position of the moving part of the contact (Fig. 2, e, f), and fixation is indicated by a circle on the symbol of its fixed part (Fig. 2, g, And).
The last two UGOs on electrical diagrams are used in cases where it is necessary to show a type of switching product whose contacts usually do not possess these properties.
The conventional graphic designation of switches on electrical diagrams (Fig. 3) is based on the symbols of the making and breaking contacts. This means that the contacts are fixed in both positions, i.e., they do not have self-return.
Rice. 3.
The letter code of products in this group is determined by the switched circuit and the design of the switch. If the latter is placed in the control, signaling, measurement circuit, it is designated by the Latin letter S, and if in the power circuit - by the letter Q. The control method is reflected in the second letter of the code: push-button switches and switches are designated by the letter B (SB), automatic ones by the letter F (SF), all others - with the letter A (SA).
If the switch has several contacts, the symbols of their moving parts on the electrical diagrams are placed in parallel and connected by a mechanical connection line. As an example in Fig. Figure 3 shows a conventional graphic designation of switch SA2, containing one break and two make contacts, and SA3, consisting of two make contacts, one of which (right in the figure) closes later than the other.
Switches Q1 and Q2 are used to switch power circuits. The Q2 contacts are mechanically connected to some control, as indicated by the dashed line segment. When depicting contacts in different sections of the circuit, their belonging to the same switching product is traditionally reflected in (SA 4.1, SA4.2, SA4.3).
Rice. 4.
Similarly, based on the symbol of the switching contact, symbolic graphic symbols of two-position switches are built on electrical diagrams (Fig. 4, SA1, SA4). If the switch is fixed not only in the extreme, but also in the middle (neutral) position, the symbol of the moving part of the contact will be placed between the symbols of the fixed parts, the possibility of turning it in both directions is shown by a dot (SA2 in Fig. 4). The same is done if it is necessary to show on the diagram a switch that is fixed only in the middle position (see Fig. 4, SA3).
A distinctive feature of UGO push-button switches and switches is the button symbol connected to the designation of the moving part of the contact by a mechanical connection line (Fig. 5). Moreover, if the conventional graphic designation is based on the main contact symbol (see Fig. 1), this means that the switch (switch) is not fixed in the pressed position (when the button is released, it returns to its original position).
Rice. 5.
Rice. 6.
If it is necessary to show fixation, use symbols of contacts with fixation specially designed for this purpose (Fig. 6). Return to the original position when pressing another switch button is shown in this case by the symbol of the locking mechanism, attaching it to the symbol of the moving part of the contact on the side opposite to the button symbol (see Fig. 6, SB1.1, SB 1.2). If the return occurs when the button is pressed again, the sign of the locking mechanism is depicted instead of the mechanical connection line (SB2).
(for example, biscuits) are designated as shown in Fig. 7. Here SA1 (for 6 positions and 1 direction) and SA2 (for 4 positions and 2 directions) are switches with leads from moving contacts, SA3 (for 3 positions and 3 directions) - without leads from them. The conventional graphic designation of individual contact groups is depicted in the same position on the diagrams; belonging to one switch is traditionally shown in the position designation (see Fig. 7, SA1.1, SA1.2).
Rice. 7.
Rice. 8
To depict multi-position switches with complex switching, GOST provides several methods. Two of them are shown in Fig. 8. Switch SA1 - 5 positions (they are indicated by numbers; letters a-d are entered for explanation only). In position 1, chains a and b, d and d are connected to each other, in positions 2, 3, 4 - chains b and d, a and c, a and d, respectively, in position 5 - chains a and b, c and d .
Switch SA2 - 4 positions. In the first of them, chains a and b are closed (this is indicated by the dots located under them), in the second - chains c and d, in the third - c and d, in the fourth - b and d.
Zorin A. Yu.