Suggestions using Connectors vs Terminal Blocks

[mgerbasio]

I'm going to take a stab at creating my own symbols. The panel uses PCBs from vendors that are "stacked" onto different chassis inside the panel. With out older equipment I had created blocks with the PCBs being a 3D symbol so it would hide the components behind it. This worked well and I'm planning to do the same here.

So, my question is about connectors vs terminal blocks. The PCBs have the termianl blocks where the male end is soldered to the PCB and the female end is a plug-in type connector (Phoenix MCD type would be an example). For the schematic symbols, would it be better to use a connector or terminal? I'm thinking connector but want to be sure there isn't something that might be a better/worse I won't find out about until later.

What about connectors with customer cables, like a 20 pin ribbon cable? Any suggestions on the best way to handle these?

Thanks.

[Icemanau]

It depends if you are doing a schematic symbol or a footprint symbol.

For a schematic symbol, I would use a wire terminal. I use a description to indicate what connection block in our dwgs.

For example

Tag : Q0DTC

TERMDESC : TB4

TERM : 1

The particular block this refers to has 10 different plug in terminal blocks with up to 8 connection per block.

The example refers to the component (Tag), Terminal Block (TERMDESC) and actual pin number (TERM).

A footprint of this component shows only the major components and the terminal blocks without the added attributes to show the wiring. The wiring isn't shown as it would be to crowded on the dwg and hard for the guys on the floor to read.

I've attached a copy of each for you to get an idea of what I mean.

Regards Brad

[mgerbasio]

Thanks. I'll check out the drawing and appreciate you're response.

I don't have scaled drawings for the boards from the manufacturer so I had to create these which is unfortunately typical for my work. For the footprint I show as much information as I can reasonalbe show to scale. On the schematic I tried to follow the example on the Autodesk site which showed the connectors and after trying both I really didn't see much of a different either way I decided to go with it. However, using terminals, since I don't have a footprint and schematic symbol from the manufacturer (generally phoenix or weildmuller) it looks like I'd need to create these too. Neither have these on their websites and I haven't received an email response yet.

Just wanted to be sure I wasn't going to regret going with one or the other two months from now.

[Icemanau]

I spoke to our local Weidmuller rep some time back and he was able to get me a cd with all of the terminal blocks and accessories on it in dwg format.

There were 3 views of each block.. Top, Side and Shoe.

I copied the Top view to the work computer, and as I needed a particular footprint for a terminal, I added the appropriate attributes before adding the block to the footprint database.

I believe I ended up with about 80M worth of blocks all up before I started adding attributes.

Speaking with the rep would be the better way to go as you can usually get a result within a very short period of time. Especially if you use  a lot of their products.

As for the schematic symbol, the ones that come with ACADE are usually enough. for most dwgs. You just need to have a legend showing what each symbol means...

For example, the Circle could be a WDU10 and the Square could be a SAKC10 (both Weidmuller terminals). a Legend would have a dumb block (shape without any attributes) and a text description next to it.

Regards Brad