Wire Numbering Standard

CGB

Member
Join Date
Mar 2022
Location
PA
Posts
2
My company is currently in the process of implementing a new wire numbering standard, where there isn't one currently. I like the popular method of using the electrical drawing's sheet # and row # to derive the wire numbers. The problem I am facing is how can this method work if you wish to have a different electrical drawing for each control panel in the system. In this case, what can you call a wire the goes between 2 panels, therefor 2 drawings?? Each drawing will show the one wire in a different sheet # / row #.
 
I use the I O address output group 2 output 25 would be O0225 and if it passes through another device add 50 O0257 that way here ever i see the wire I can easily identify the origins, in your case add the panel number on the front 1O0225
i never liked using the drawing line numbers, in the field you rarely have the drawings available, this way it's easy to look at the wire number and know the plc I/O with out having a print
Motor leads Tagged Motor number lead T1, T2, T3
Power leads use the breaker number
You can't count on even having a set of print in the field
 
Panel suffix - wire number
example
panel name MCP-A
wire number A-30111A on line number 30111, A- = MCP, A-30111A = 1st wire number, A-30111B
 
If separate control panels are part of a larger system, I just assign different page numbers for the individual enclosures. This takes some planning, though. If I cannot avoid duplicate page numbers (like when two systems are interconnected), then I follow a system similar to what Jim3846 mentioned.
If you are an OEM that offers options with your systems, then you could dedicate certain page numbers for those options. If you do not build those options into the system, then those pages would be labeled "Reserved for Option xxxxx".
 
I do a lot of multi-sheet schematics.

The wire that shows up in two panels has to "originate" somewhere and can carry the wire number from there. Standardization comes in if your company wants to make rules for that. Some companies like any kind of control device or PLC to always be the origin so the wire carries a number associated with the control schematics.

The software might offer "source" and "destination" arrows to help the person reading the schematics to know where the wire goes and where it came from.
 
The worst “standard” is having a different # on each end. I’ve also seen a from/to tag system. Usually those tags are 15 or more characters long. Takes too long to make & often get typo errors.
 
We use numbering based on IO type and location.
For control and power...
100s for sheet 1
200s for sheet 2
and so on

For PLC prints:
1000 numbers for inputs
2000 numbers for outputs
3000 numbers for analog in
4000 numbers for analog out

1015 would trace back to PLC input #15
 
I like the popular method of using the electrical drawing's sheet # and row # to derive the wire numbers.
Oh god, please dont.

The problem I am facing is how can this method work if you wish to have a different electrical drawing for each control panel in the system. In this case, what can you call a wire the goes between 2 panels, therefor 2 drawings?? Each drawing will show the one wire in a different sheet # / row #.
Yeah. You are finding out why this arcaic way of naming components should not be used.

What we do:
1. Everything is arranged according to functions, so each function has a unique name, i.e. "=K1", "=K2", "=G1", etc.
2. All wiring is drawn wiring-correct. That means that every single wire can be identified in the diagrams. You do not simply bundle many wires with a single name because they have the same potential.
3. Each wire gets a unique name within the function, i.e. "=K1-W1", "=K1-W2", "=K1-W3".
4. The above does not include cables. Cables and the wires in cables are identified by the cablename:wirenumer, i.e. "=G1-W1:1", "=G1-W1:2", "=G1-W1:3" or when color coded "=G1-W2:BN", "=G1-W2:BU", "=G1-W2:BK", "=G1-W2:WE"

Any decent electrical schematic software will do this for you automatically.
 
You do not simply bundle many wires with a single name because they have the same potential.
Well, that is EXACTLY what most people I know are used to do and would prefer to do. And that is what gets them stumped when they are getting introduced to a package like EPLAN: there are no "wire numbers" as they know them.
 
This subject can get real ugly. Personally I agree that wires of the same potentail should be labeled the same, but I am old school and in the US. I have also gone between sheet/line number, to using I/O point address. Like anything there are good and bad to any method. With sheet/line number you know exactly where to go to find somtething in the drawings. With an I/O point address it is not as direct as to where to find it. I have worked with many system drawings done in EPLAN. Personally I hate them. These were created with each device is its own page. Done this way to be able to auto generate drawings. Now the drawing set that typically takes a hundred or so sheets is now almost 3000. Sucks when a requirement is to provide hard copies. It takes 6 reams of paper to print out one panel, and I have 20-30 panels. I need a semi truck to deliver the drawings.
 
as others have said, many variations.

what i use is the following.
xxyyzz
xx is the page number there could be xxx
yy is the line number
zz is the line number progression.
for example 530703, page 53, line 07, 3rd wire in the sequence.
for panel to panel you might use pnlw-xxyyzz
james
 
Oh god, please dont.

Yeah. You are finding out why this arcaic way of naming components should not be used.

What we do:
1. Everything is arranged according to functions, so each function has a unique name, i.e. "=K1", "=K2", "=G1", etc.
2. All wiring is drawn wiring-correct. That means that every single wire can be identified in the diagrams. You do not simply bundle many wires with a single name because they have the same potential.
3. Each wire gets a unique name within the function, i.e. "=K1-W1", "=K1-W2", "=K1-W3".
4. The above does not include cables. Cables and the wires in cables are identified by the cablename:wirenumer, i.e. "=G1-W1:1", "=G1-W1:2", "=G1-W1:3" or when color coded "=G1-W2:BN", "=G1-W2:BU", "=G1-W2:BK", "=G1-W2:WE"

Any decent electrical schematic software will do this for you automatically.

Agree to disagree. Wiring by potential with sheet & page number makes troubleshooting easier.

Interlocking shouldn't be a huge deal. Typically one machine turns on (or enables) the other and shows the connection to the other panel in that drawing set. Just show the terminal blocks in the other panel. Not a huge deal. You only have to decide which panel is controlling the other.
 

Similar Topics

I have heard that in Europe the most common wire number scheme is a unique number for each wire. As opposed to wire numbers based on "Net" that is...
Replies
33
Views
11,317
I was troubleshooting inside a control panel this morning.. It was a little frustrating because a component wasn't getting the power it needs but...
Replies
21
Views
5,695
I think it was here. Awhile back there was quite a thread on wire numbering methods for controls: PLC wiring, field wiring, basic control wiring...
Replies
2
Views
2,967
Hi, Have a job where the client spec calls for their own style of wire numbering. They want unique identification each end of the wire using the...
Replies
18
Views
8,280
Does anyone number their wire duct covers so the right cover can be put back on the right duct? It is a real mess trying to get them back on...
Replies
27
Views
9,126
Back
Top Bottom