INPUT & OUTPUT wire numbers

[ianingram]

The only argument I can see is that if they loose the prints they have something to halfway go by.

If they loose the prints, well then, they don't deserve to be fed!



We use Sheet number/Column Number/Sequence Number method for 90% of our drawings - most of the time we are building new panels from scratch.

This means that every wire number is a minimum of 3 characters - Wire number 732 would be found on Sheet 7, Column 3 and then sequence 2 (assuming that there is a wire number 731 above it).

We have also used the Instrument tag method on larger jobs - eg Temperature Transmitter TT100 might have the wirenumbers TT100-1 and TT100-2 if it is 4-20mA loop, or TT100-1, TT100-2 & TT100-3 if it is a RTD... this method works well with compact/contrologix systems where you can use tag based addressing - not much help if you are using a different PLC IMHO, as you cannot find easily where TT100 connects to the PLC

 

[BrianNStPaul]

I think that both methods have their merits. If a company sticks with one type of controller, then using the PLC address as part of the wire number would probably work well. With several types of controllers on a variety of machines, then the sheet/line method would seem to be quicker.
As a side note, I have seen more machines lately that do not number the wires at all, the schematic only show device terminal markings. This method is usable, but a searchable pdf of the schematic is almost a necessity.