Attention Europeans: Wire Numbering Question

JesperMP said:

So, after a little bit of investigation ...
IEC 62491 specifies several different alowable methods for wire numbering.

These possible methods are:
0. No marking. All wires can be followed visually.
A. Marking of the cable manufacturer. The wire no or color of the wire is used.
R. Identification marking. Each individual wire can be identified.
CL. Local connection marking. The wire end is identified by the connection point on the local device.
CR. Remote connection marking. The wire end is identified by the connection point on the remote device. componection.
S. Signal marking. The wire is labeled with the signal it carries.

And you can combine several of those.

CL is NOT the method described previously by labeling the wire with only the connected device's terminal no (i.e. ":A1"). CL requires that you use the full name of the device (i.e. "=H22-Q3:A1").

"By net" would correspond to method S.
"By wire" would correspond to method R.

edit:
@testsubject, I did not remember exactly the IEC standard that defined wire numbering. IEC 60204-1 is the "mother" that refers to all the other standards.

Click to expand...

I am pretty well versed in 60204; I was the safety engineer at a previous employer.

The CL version was the one I was referring to; I did not include the Location Code [=XXX] because that is only applicable if there are multiple Locations involved and it is not clear which terminal is being referred to.

Do you have a newer book for 61849:20008? The one I have does not reference the methods like you did (0,A,R.etc),. I did find that the Signal is a supplementary label (7.1), not a primary label.

We decided to follow CL due to 61666 stating that the terminals have to be uniquely identified. We did not like having each wire with the same signal label going to different terminals. (24V could go to the following terminals; TS1:1, TS1:2 ,TS2:1, TS2:2, etc...)

Has this been changed? (I like to stay current).

I dont have the most uptodate standard. It is one of those we do not subscribe to.
But I have seen a discussion from 2009 (!) that the methods R, CL, CR, S are "supplementary" and also the words "can be" is used a lot, rather than "must be".
Both the "by wire" or "R" and the "by net" S are not defined very well.

So there seems to be room for interpretation. But I conclude that at least one of the methods listed must be used.

We chose to consider a wire a device that must be identified like any other device, and then follow IEC/EN ISO 81346-1 regarding reference designations.
So a wire must always be called "-W", and defined by function (=) and location (+). On the wire itself there is no location designator since the wire itself is usually in a place that has a location. For example in a control cabinet with the location +CC2, all the components inside have the location +CC2 so it is implied.
Cables are different because they usually span at least two locations.
So .. in our system with wires labelled "by net", a group of wires with the same potential could be "=H22-W45".
If we had been using "by wire", a wire would have been called "H22-W11", or maybe "H22-W11.1", "H22-W11.2", "H22-W11.3" if it is a group of wires with the same potential.

The above would be enough, but nothing stops you from combining several methods, i.e. CL / S / CR, "=H22-Q1:A1 / =H22-W45 / =H22-K2:5"

I dont think anything significant has changed. I was recently at a training in the latest version of IEC 60204-1 and the only thing that was explicitly mentioned about wire numbers was that if there are wire numbers, they must be in the schematics. It was specifically explained that just placing wire numbers according to the terminal of the connected device without the number being shown in the schematics was not acceptable.

61849:2008 you refer to does not exist ?

JesperMP said:

Snip
61849:2008 you refer to does not exist ?

Click to expand...

My mistake. That should have been 62491. I have too many numbers running around in my head...

LadderLogic said:

But this is obviously incorrect! Of course it cannot be that hundreds of wires would be labelled just "A2". If someone does choose to use the "by wire" approach, each wire that terminates at a different relay or contactor coil should have a unique lable on that end"-CR100:A2", "-CR101:A2", "-KM1.1:A2" and so on. Otherwise this whole thing is useless.

Click to expand...

We passed in several facilities exams of compliance with EN standards by external certification companies, with many cable ends marked the same, they never said anything about the cable numbering,