AnsweredAssumed Answered

Wire Numbers with Bridged Terminal Strips

Question asked by Jim Sculley on Nov 1, 2016
Latest reply on Nov 9, 2016 by Brian Cooke

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 6

I'm trying to understand the wire numbering algorithm, but terminal strips are causing some confusion. Can someone explain why the wire numbers in the two images below are different?

The terminals are passing, and terminals 1 and 2 are bridged. I don't understand why the wire numbering algorithm in the second image renumbers things form 500-1 to 501-1. The first wire encountered is on row 500, so I would expect everything to be 500-1.

Things get stranger when the number of terminals increases. Consider the following arrangement where each terminal is passing and is bridged to its adjacent terminals:

Why is the wire number 505-1 and not 503-1? As I move the wire from terminal to terminal and renumber the wires, the results are as follows:

Terminal Wire Number

1 505-1

2 505-1

3 506-1

4 509-1

5 509-1

6 509-1

7 508-1

I see no rhyme or reason to this.

No one else has this question

Outcomes

Evan Stanek Nov 1, 2016 12:29 PM

The first place I would look is the "background math" of your Title Block rows/columns to make sure the math to generate your rows in the background matches the symbols you placed to punch that row information through. Right click on the sheet, go to Title Block>Open and review your math to make sure it lines up with the Row Attributes precisely. Then I would check your Row Formula in your project configuration. Finally, just for reference, is your project numbering set to "Left>Right, Top>Bottom" or "Top>Bottom, Left>Right" in the Project>Configuration>Formula tab?

Actions

Jim Sculley @ Evan Stanek on Nov 2, 2016 9:26 AM

I have checked and double checked all of that. The numbering scheme is Left->Right then Top->Bottom. The row tags are all properly aligned. I do not see this bad behavior with other areas of the schematic. It is only with bridged terminals.

Actions

Loretta Stiurca @ Jim Sculley on Nov 7, 2016 9:12 AM

Would you mind attaching a simple sample project with this issue?

Thank you!

Best,

Loretta

Actions

Jim Sculley @ Loretta Stiurca on Nov 7, 2016 11:35 AM

I was in the process of creating a simple project (using the default ANSI project template) to upload but the problem disappeared. After some additional investigation, I know where the bad wire number data is being generated, but I do not know why. My equipotential formula looks like this:

(FILE_ORDERNO * 100 + VAL(ROW_ORDERNO)) + "-" + EQUIPOTENTIAL_ORDERNO

Since the file number and equipotential number are correct, the problem lies with the ROW_ORDERNO variable. If you select a wire in the schematic, the properties window will list the file number, row and column for the wire in the 'Associated Data' area. This row number is not correct when the terminals are bridged. This leads to the incorrect wire numbers. I've attached a simple project showing the behavior. There are two terminal strips. Terminal strip X2 (on the left) has bridged terminals. Terminal strip X1 (on the right) does not. When you move the wire on the left hand side of terminal strip X2 from terminal to terminal, you will see that the value listed for 'Row' in the associated data will be incorrect. Moving from terminal 1 to terminal 9 in order yields row numbers in the order 1,5,5,2,2,9,9,9,8. The same experiment using terminal strip X1 yields rows in the correct order.

Attachments

Terminal Trouble.proj.tewzip.zip1.3 MB

Actions

Loretta Stiurca @ Jim Sculley on Nov 7, 2016 9:22 PM

It looks to me like the problem is with EQUIPOTENTIAL_ORDERNO rather than the row number. Check out what happens if you number only by equipotential order number (even without bridging).

Actions

Brian Cooke Nov 9, 2016 2:20 PM

I encountered a very similar problem. Something with bridging the terminals together is messing up the Left->Right then Top->Bottom numbering. When submitted to Solidworks they created SPR 978793, the title of which does not exactly seem to fit your problem but in reality is the same.

Actions

6 Replies

Evan Stanek Nov 1, 2016 12:29 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
The first place I would look is the "background math" of your Title Block rows/columns to make sure the math to generate your rows in the background matches the symbols you placed to punch that row information through. Right click on the sheet, go to Title Block>Open and review your math to make sure it lines up with the Row Attributes precisely. Then I would check your Row Formula in your project configuration. Finally, just for reference, is your project numbering set to "Left>Right, Top>Bottom" or "Top>Bottom, Left>Right" in the Project>Configuration>Formula tab?
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Jim Sculley @ Evan Stanek on Nov 2, 2016 9:26 AM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  I have checked and double checked all of that. The numbering scheme is Left->Right then Top->Bottom. The row tags are all properly aligned. I do not see this bad behavior with other areas of the schematic. It is only with bridged terminals.
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Loretta Stiurca @ Jim Sculley on Nov 7, 2016 9:12 AM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Would you mind attaching a simple sample project with this issue?
    
    Thank you!
    
    Best,
    Loretta
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - Jim Sculley @ Loretta Stiurca on Nov 7, 2016 11:35 AM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      I was in the process of creating a simple project (using the default ANSI project template) to upload but the problem disappeared. After some additional investigation, I know where the bad wire number data is being generated, but I do not know why. My equipotential formula looks like this:
      
      (FILE_ORDERNO * 100 + VAL(ROW_ORDERNO)) + "-" + EQUIPOTENTIAL_ORDERNO
      
      Since the file number and equipotential number are correct, the problem lies with the ROW_ORDERNO variable. If you select a wire in the schematic, the properties window will list the file number, row and column for the wire in the 'Associated Data' area. This row number is not correct when the terminals are bridged. This leads to the incorrect wire numbers. I've attached a simple project showing the behavior. There are two terminal strips. Terminal strip X2 (on the left) has bridged terminals. Terminal strip X1 (on the right) does not. When you move the wire on the left hand side of terminal strip X2 from terminal to terminal, you will see that the value listed for 'Row' in the associated data will be incorrect. Moving from terminal 1 to terminal 9 in order yields row numbers in the order 1,5,5,2,2,9,9,9,8. The same experiment using terminal strip X1 yields rows in the correct order.
      Attachments
      Terminal Trouble.proj.tewzip.zip1.3 MB
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
      - Loretta Stiurca @ Jim Sculley on Nov 7, 2016 9:22 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        It looks to me like the problem is with EQUIPOTENTIAL_ORDERNO rather than the row number. Check out what happens if you number only by equipotential order number (even without bridging).
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
Brian Cooke Nov 9, 2016 2:20 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I encountered a very similar problem. Something with bridging the terminals together is messing up the Left->Right then Top->Bottom numbering. When submitted to Solidworks they created SPR 978793, the title of which does not exactly seem to fit your problem but in reality is the same.
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions

Wire Numbers with Bridged Terminal Strips

Outcomes

Attachments

Related Content

Recommended Content