location codes vs installation code

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:02:50 GMT

Hello

Im trying to understand more about the difference between location codes and installation codes for the IEC standard

I located an old thread with a similar question but am still unclear as to the difference

Anyone want to take a stab at it?

Re: location codes vs installation code

Icemanau — Thu, 27 Apr 2017 23:53:47 GMT

LOCation and INSTallation codes can vary from component to component.

The idea behind them is to allow you to state the INSTallation of a part and then where it is located in that LOCation.

There is no set standard on what the codes have to be, just that they exist and how they are formatted into component names.

For example, INSTallation might be Board1 with LOCation as Panel3 which then gets formatted into the component tags as =Board1+Panel3-CR12

Some people use the description of the physical installation as the INST and the LOC codes.

Others may use a set table of codes which then have to be referenced back to find the physical installation and location.

It all depends on what the standards are used by the company or department that does the dwgs.

Regards Brad

Re: location codes vs installation code

ccad2509 — Thu, 04 May 2017 19:42:09 GMT

Ok here goes

The installation and location codes are based around an old DIN standard that is now folded into IEC 81346-1

It’s a structured approach to numbering things (not exclusively electrical)

Its based around the following structure ==AAAA=BBBB+CCCC-DDDD

Where ==AAAA is the functional assignment which is at the top (think of it as the top part of a pyramid)

Where =BBBB is the installation code which is in a layer directly below the functional assignment

Below that is +CCCC which is the location code

Bellow that is -DDDD which is your tag or device number

You can have an infinite amount of location codes below an installation code

And you can have an infinite amount of installation codes below a functional assignment

So how does this affect an electrical engineer/designer

You can define specific parts of an overall system and assign them a installation / location code

For example, if you have a form 4 MCC each motor circuit is in a separate cubicle so you could designate each cubicle a location code and the complete MCC as an installation code

What happens next is you can standardise your numbering inside each location/cubicle for example the main power feed from the cubicle to a field mounted isolator will always be cable C1

The cable from the field isolator to the motor will always be C2

Now how the system should work is if you had a series of motors the same size being controlled the same way then you complete the design for one (we will call this installation +CUB1)

Now by copying the installation to a new installation location say +CUB2 and +CUB3 and +CUB4 you have now created 4 different motor circuits and the system will recognise them as different items

CABLE +CUB1-C1 is different form +CUB-C2,+CUB-C3 & +CUB4

This applies for all devices in each location zone

We can then add another layer above this with the installation zone

So =MCC1+CUB1-C1 is unique from =MCC2+CUB1-C1

You can apply this to panels or a complete factory breaking down a complex process into a series of installation and location zones

A recent project I completed had

13 installation zones and each zone was a production line and had up to 50 location zones but because the way it was numbered and broken down it was small logical parts (we are talking about 3000 cables+ involved in this project

Now if you doing similar designs again and again what you can do is develop a base design then have location zones as options i.e you could have 3 different ventilation options dependant where the panel is installed world wide

Option 1 being fan assisted cooling

Option 2 being a heat exchanger being fitted to the panel

Option 3 being a heater being fitted

It’s also a very powerful way to develop large design from small repetitive circuits that being said and here’s the kicker

Autodesk in their wisdom has chosen not to comply with the numbering standard and there are a number of issues which have not been addressed over the years to correctly implement the standard

Brad you usually give good advice but here it’s a bit week

Because ACADE can’t do it doesn’t mean it hasn’t been done

For example, on competing packages you have the code for the installation/location and another linked field which is the full description so you have two options when displaying a FUN/INST/LOC code which is the attribute for the FUN/INST/LOC code or the attribute with the full description for the FUN/INST/LOC code

Another feature is having an editor exclusively for FUN/INST/LOC structure where in one place you can edit/rename these values and the system automatically updates the complete project with values for the number of items already in your FUN/INST/LOC zones also you can preconfigure all your zones before you start and change the sort order of the zones all from one menu

Also as part of this standard we also have ++ which is called installation (where as + is now called mounting location)

So apart from non-compliance and bugs the INST/LOC is also out of date

But that being said if you can get your head around how it works and get passed the screaming from the dinosaur’s and we fear change members of staff its without doubt a much better way to design and build systems

topic Re: location codes vs installation code in AutoCAD Electrical Forum

location codes vs installation code

Re: location codes vs installation code

Re: location codes vs installation code