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
