LaTeX forum ⇒ Graphics, Figures & Tables ⇒ Thick vertical lines in tabular Topic is solved

[pooley343]

I am trying to make a table but with thicker lines for all the outer lines. All of the packages suggest that you should never, ever use vertical lines and don't support thicker vertical lines...well what if I need to?!

I've found and example of what I want but it is written in TeX...

{
\offinterlineskip
\tabskip=0pt
\halign{ 
\vrule height2.75ex depth1.25ex width 1pt #\tabskip=1em &
\hfil 0.#\hfil &\vrule # & \qquad$0.#\,\pi$\hfil &\vrule # &
\hfil 0.#\hfil &#\vrule width 1pt \tabskip=0pt\cr
\noalign{\hrule height 1pt}
& \omit$\alpha_s$ &&\omit star angle && \omit diquark size [fm] & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
& 3 && 22 && 34 &\cr
& 4 && 14 && 22 &\cr
& 5 && 095 && 15 &\cr
\noalign{\hrule height 1pt}
}}

Any Help?

[gmedina]

Hi,

the following example illustrates one possibility:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{array}

\begin{document}

\begin{center}
  \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
  \begin{tabular}{!{\vrule width 2pt}c|c|c!{\vrule width 2pt}c|c|c%
  !{\vrule width 2pt}c|c|c!{\vrule width 2pt}}
    \noalign{\hrule height 2pt}
    1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9\\ \hline
    1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9\\ \hline
    1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9\\ \noalign{\hrule height 2pt}
    1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9\\ \hline
    1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9\\ \hline
    1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9\\ \noalign{\hrule height 2pt}
    1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9\\ \hline
    1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9\\ \hline
    1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9\\ \noalign{\hrule height 2pt}
  \end{tabular}
\end{center}

\end{document}

To change a vertical line's width, use

!{\vrule width <unit>}

instead of the symbol "|"
To change a horizontal line's width, use

\noalign{\hrule height <unit>}

instead of \hline

[curiouslearn]

Gmedina, thanks very much for this old post of yours. This morning I was looking for how to increase the line width of vertical lines in tables. I spent a lot of time searching and only found people giving advice about why there should be no vertical lines in tables, which was useless to me since normal form representations of games in Game theory often have vertical lines. Then I came across this helpful post of yours, on this ever helpful forum.

[localghost]

[...] I spent a lot of time searching and only found people giving advice about why there should be no vertical lines in tables, which was useless to me since normal form representations of games in Game theory often have vertical lines. [...]

Avoiding vertical lines is still true for tables containing normal text to improve readability. If the special purpose of a table is made clear right at the beginning, nobody will refuse to help in creating a table with vertical lines.


Best regards
Thorsten¹

[curiouslearn]

Thanks, Thorsten. I understand. Can someone please tell me how I can use the thickness of \cline lines, that is lines which only span a few columns. Alternatively, how can the thicker horizontal lines drawn using the method suggested by gmedina can be restricted to only a few columns.

Thanks for any help.

[Juanjo]

Add this to the preamble:

\newlength{\arrayrulewidthOriginal}
\newcommand{\Cline}[2]{%
  \noalign{\global\setlength{\arrayrulewidthOriginal}{\arrayrulewidth}}%
  \noalign{\global\setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{#1}}\cline{#2}%
  \noalign{\global\setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{\arrayrulewidthOriginal}}}

Then write, for example, \Cline{2pt}{4-7} where you would use \cline{4-7}.

[Da Masda]

THANKS, Juanjo, this is exactly what I have been looking for
This definitely is the easiest way to handle table line thickness. GREAT!

[jimratliff]

FYI, the below quoted solution conflicts with the calc package in the following sense: If you add \usepackage{calc}, (a) it still compiles, (b) it still draws the horizontal segment, but (c) the thickness of the horizontal line is just the standard thickness and it doesn't change for different values of the length argument. If you then comment out the \usepackage{calc}, the desirable behavior is restored.

Add this to the preamble:

\newlength{\arrayrulewidthOriginal}
\newcommand{\Cline}[2]{%
  \noalign{\global\setlength{\arrayrulewidthOriginal}{\arrayrulewidth}}%
  \noalign{\global\setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{#1}}\cline{#2}%
  \noalign{\global\setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{\arrayrulewidthOriginal}}}

Then write, for example, \Cline{2pt}{4-7} where you would use \cline{4-7}.

[Juanjo]

The problem is that the calc package redefines \setlenght. A simple way to fix it consists in capturing the original definition of \setlenght in a new command, say\Setlenght, before loading calc and use \Setlenght instead of\setlenght in the definition of \Cline.

Check the following minimal working example:

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\let\Setlength\setlength % <--- Important: place this line before loading calc
\usepackage{calc}
\newlength{\arrayrulewidthOriginal}
\newcommand{\Cline}[2]{%
  \noalign{\global\Setlength{\arrayrulewidthOriginal}{\arrayrulewidth}}%
  \noalign{\global\Setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{#1}}\cline{#2}%
  \noalign{\global\Setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{\arrayrulewidthOriginal}}}

\begin{document}
  
\begin{tabular}{lccr}
   \hline
   aaa & bbb & ccc & ddd \\ \Cline{1pt}{1-2}
   aaa & bbb & ccc & ddd \\ \Cline{2pt}{3-4}
   aaa & bbb & ccc & ddd \\ 
   \hline
\end{tabular}

\end{document}