DIN Rail Mounting - ConnectCAD

[tom-SPL]

I would like to account for and illustrate equipment that is intended and will be mounted to a DIN rail within the equipment racks. Thanks!

[Conrad Preen]

I'll add it to our wish list!

 

Conrad

[Conrad Preen]

@tom-SPL I'm wondering if we can bend the RackFrame object to be a DIN rail? Essentially we are talking about a mounting that has a fixed number of equal-sized slots into which we can drop modular equipment that can occupy one or more of those slots. That's basically what a rack frame does - it just doesn't look anything like a DIN rail. What do you think? would that fit the bill if we had DIN-rail-style graphics?

 

Let me know.

 

Conrad

[spettitt]

I would be interested in more DIN rail functionality as well. I think the Rack Frame idea could have legs, but some other thoughts:

 

- I think it would need to have some integration in to DIN schematic devices. I can see it being confusing for people if they draw out all of their DIN devices on the schematic and it has no link to the physical DIN modelling.

- Because ConnectCAD schematics are inherently at the signal level, DIN schematic devices are a bit ambiguous as to cores vs circuits. One circuit of two cores might use one DIN terminal on the schematic, which is actually two DIN terminals in real life. We've had a stab at this by adding a 'DIN Data' record, where the user can input how many cores are contained and how many ways each DIN terminal should be - 2 way, 3 way etc.

- Labelling also comes in to this - generating labels for DIN terminals is one of the many boring tasks that needs doing, and is dependent on the actual model of DIN terminal used.

 

Some users here really like the WAGO Configurator, which is worth having a look at as inspiration.

 

I think it might be valuable to think of something like:

 

- Each Term Panel device set to DIN mode reveals extra PIO parameters of 'Number of Cores', 'Number of Ways Per Core' and possibly some input for 'Part Number'. This fixes the ambiguity of DIN devices by making it clear that the schematic device represents the group of DIN terminals serving an entire Signal. 

- That data is used to generate suitable physical items to drop in to a rack frame for the terminal side of DIN work.

 

- As a later phase, there could be a drop down of common DIN terminal models as symbols (so that you can just provide a few and power users can go to town), which would include labelling integration.

 

- The physical data that is present on Devices and Equipment Items changes from 'Rack Width' to 'Form', with options on half rack, full rack, non-rack and DIN. The HeightRU then becomes 'size' or something, which can show 1U, 2U or common DIN intervals, depending on the choice of Form. Devices then generate as DIN-mountable equipment items.

 

Put together, this means DIN equipment and DIN terminals can be represented on the same rail, as they are often used in real life.

Edited June 13, 2024 by spettitt

[Pat Stanford]

From my experience on PLC control panels using devices on DIN Rail, I think the fixed size slots will be a problem. There are many, many different size objects that all mount onto the rails. I know that ConnectCAD is not intended for use on this type of panel, but I would like to be able to use it for this. 😉. Might as well at least put the ideas out there while it is being considered.

 

[spettitt]

  On 6/13/2024 at 4:15 PM, Pat Stanford said:

I think the fixed size slots will be a problem

Expand  

 

Actually this is very true for DIN equipment yes, even if less so for terminals.

 

  On 6/13/2024 at 4:15 PM, Pat Stanford said:

I know that ConnectCAD is not intended for use on this type of panel

Expand  

 

Maybe not, but audio-visual installations use them routinely, so it's definitely a feature that I think should be on the roadmap.

 

I guess it depends whether there is a need for 3D or 2D - I can certainly see value in 3D because some equipment can stick out a lot further than others. That would probably means it would be a logical-equivalent object to a 3D Rack - i.e. generative configurable 3D geometry (the DIN rail) that child equipment items can dock to, and then optionally dock to a 3D rack itself.

 

If 2D were enough, it could logically be an equivalent to what a Panel Layout is currently - a 2D PIO that displays some fixed geometry and hosts 2D symbols based on instances of things on the schematic. All the tech appears to be there for this already, but it may not be as desirable as the 3D equivalent.

[Conrad Preen]

@Pat Stanford Isn't it true that DIN rails use a standard module width of 18mm? In ConnectCAD you can specify the number of slots occupied by an equipment item. So on that level I think the rack-frame is a possible starting point.

 

@spettitt regarding 2D vs 3D, I think there is no question. We've gone 3D with all our equipment layout and we're not going back. Anything that is required to make 3D as easy to use as 2D is definitely on the map.

 

As for the link between DIN rail devices and modular equipment in a DIN-rail-style rack-frame, this pretty much comes for free since we'd be leveraging the existing model.

 

Regarding circuits as signals vs. cores yes there's a kind of ambiguity but it's a good ambiguity because you can use it! ConnectCAD keeps track what's connected to what and leaves it up to you to decide on the interpretation. It's very easy to add complexity to software and very hard to get rid of it once it's there. So unless I can see a very clear path to a deeper level of detail in the general sense I think it's better to leave it as is.

 

Conrad

[spettitt]

  On 6/17/2024 at 9:33 AM, Conrad Preen said:

Regarding circuits as signals vs. cores yes there's a kind of ambiguity but it's a good ambiguity because you can use it! ConnectCAD keeps track what's connected to what and leaves it up to you to decide on the interpretation.

Expand  

 

Yea, and I think it's fine on the schematic as it is...but - if someone draws a circuit in to a DIN terminal on the schematic and then generates 3D equipment to represent that DIN terminal to drop in to their rack frame - how will you know how many wide the DIN terminal needs to be? Do you just put it on the user to take the initial DIN terminal and change it to the width they want? That would be a decent first step I guess.

Edited June 17, 2024 by spettitt

[Pat Stanford]

  On 6/17/2024 at 9:33 AM, Conrad Preen said:

 Isn't it true that DIN rails use a standard module width of 18mm? In ConnectCAD you can specify the number of slots occupied by an equipment item. So on that level I think the rack-frame is a possible starting point.

Expand  

Not in my experience, at least in power devices.

 

I just quickly looked through one vendors catalog of power supplies, terminal blocks, circuit breakers, and motor starters, and different devices came in the following widths (and I am sure I missed some). All dims in millimeters.

 

5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13.5, 16, 17.5, 17.8, 19.5, 25.5, 27, 35.6, 45, 52, 55, 58, 60, 61.5, 64, 70, 76, 79, 90, 94, 100, 106, 119, 162, 187

 

And three other rail mount instruments I used on a project were  66.5, 10.2, and 27.

 

Even less standardization between different manufacturers.

 

The only thing in the power and industrial control area that you can trust to be the same is that they all cllip onto the 35mm rail. It is a competitive advantage to be a small as possible to allow more in a given panel.

[Conrad Preen]

@Pat Stanford Thanks for the input Pat! I still think that the rack frame is a good starting point. It will need slightly different fit-to-slot behavior and locations will have to designated ordinally from left to right. That creates a bit of a hassle in that if you want to insert a module in the middle the locations of all the modules to the right of it need their slot numbers incrementing. And we need to think about empty spaces in the middle too.

 

But we can stretch the model a bit more to fit all this. No promises for when.

 

Conrad

[R_Teunissen]

With the risk of stating the obvious;
When talking to a company (in the building automation industry), who just started using ConnectCAD, they made the remark, that the basic principal of Racks and DIN rail is the same, only the "rack" is turned on its side.

DIN rail equipment should have a width in standard units (1M = 18mm)

The height and depth are variable.

I agree, that manufacturers do tend to deviate from the standard units, but also in a rack, I can give an Equipment Item a "non-standard" height and it will still connect to a rack.

 

Perhaps the solution would be adding an option in the Device Builder that it can be Rack mountable (width standard height units) OR DIN Rail mountable (width standard width units)

I understand that this would involve having a "DIN Rail 3D" tool, next to the "Equipment rack 3D" tool, but if ConnectCad also wants to cater to the fixed / building installation industry, this could be a consideration.

[Conrad Preen]

Hi @R_Teunissen Remco!

 

That's interesting. My own research and the discussion above showed that although 1M = 18mm is common there were a lot of deviations. In order to automate any process we have to standardise. If industry users will accept 18mm as a standard for DIN rail slots and that deviations become their responsibility then we have a basis to move forward.

 

Regarding solutions, we already have one - the Rack Frame. Essentially the DIN rail is a variant of the rack frame. So we don't really need any special new tools or behaviors to support this, just different graphics. This would be an easy win - IF we can settle on an 18mm slot width. If we can't do that then we will have to number modules ordinally left-to-right and accept the inefficiencies that will result from inserting /deleting a module in the middle (renumbering everything else to the right throughout the drawing).

 

As engineers we all think in terms of how we would solve the problem. But that's jumping the gun! The first step in any project is to define the requirements. Establish the goals. Then work out a solution that meets those requirements. The forum is always fun because I have to work backwards from the suggestions to figure out what the goals were.

 

I'm happy to put this one on the road map if I can get some clarity about the requirements. In my view the simpler the better.

 

Conrad

[R_Teunissen]

Hi @Conrad Preen,

 

Did a bit of digging around several manufacturers websites.

 

Loxone, Visual Productions, Pharos and Mean Well (all established names within building automation) use DIN rail equipment.

 

Looking at the dimensions of their equipment, shows that they all fall within the 18mm / unit.

What you do see, is that they are typically a bit smaller than whole unit size. (for instance: 6 units should be 108 mm wide, but the actual equipment is 104 mm)

This is most probably because they want some "wiggle room" between items on the rail.

 

Hope that somebody else has some extra input.

[Conrad Preen]

Sounds like there might be a case for a DIN rail style for rack frames. The user can then set the slot width the way they want maybe with 18mm as a default. The only question in my mind is will this satisfy enough of the people enough of the time? It's a curious thing but if we bring out a feature that provides some useful automation that covers say 80% of cases, the people in the 20% will hate us even though this wasn't a feature they had before anyway. Human nature I guess.

 

Let's keep the conversation going Remco - I think there's something here and I do agree that DIN rail is a popular mounting technique.

 

Conrad

[R_Teunissen]

Unfortunately I agree, that there is no such thing as pleasing everybody.

Circling back on the use of the Rack Frame for DIN Rail attachment versus an altered version of the Equipment Rack.
Either way, it will need some re-engineering to align with how a user expects it to function.

 

A DIN Rail can be a part of a Rack (https://www.blackbox.com/en-us/store/product/detail/alertwerks-rackmount-din-rail-bracket---single-1u/emedin), what means the width of the DIN Rail is dictated by the width of the rack (mostly 19 inch)

 

Looking at the installation industry, a DIN Rail is basically a metal strip screwed to a wall, meaning (in theory) that it can be infinite in width.

In my humble opinion, being able to specify with a Device on which DIN Rail it is, and which unit it starts, would closer to how a Rack Equipment item works, than a Rack Frame.

More than willing to be proven wrong

[Conrad Preen]

@R_Teunissen a Rack Frame object does not have to be in a rack! It can be, but it can also sit wherever you put it. So I think it is a close enough fit to what we need and it's better not to re-invent the wheel. The main issue is the variable size of modules. But if we put a little water in our wine and work with fixed size slots I think we can achieve some useful results at very low cost. Certainly better than what we have now.

 

I will plan a change on these lines and see where it takes us.

[tekbench]

  On 6/13/2024 at 5:10 PM, spettitt said:

 

Actually this is very true for DIN equipment yes, even if less so for terminals.

 

 

Maybe not, but audio-visual installations use them routinely, so it's definitely a feature that I think should be on the roadmap.

 

I guess it depends whether there is a need for 3D or 2D - I can certainly see value in 3D because some equipment can stick out a lot further than others. That would probably means it would be a logical-equivalent object to a 3D Rack - i.e. generative configurable 3D geometry (the DIN rail) that child equipment items can dock to, and then optionally dock to a 3D rack itself.

 

If 2D were enough, it could logically be an equivalent to what a Panel Layout is currently - a 2D PIO that displays some fixed geometry and hosts 2D symbols based on instances of things on the schematic. All the tech appears to be there for this already, but it may not be as desirable as the 3D equivalent.

Expand  

I SECOND THIS WITH AN BANG. We use DIN rail for 'a ton' of random stuff. Speakers cables that got cut too short, Outdoor DMX panels, Fiber sub-systems, interfacing lighting systems INTO BMS systems, etc. Thats just the stuff from the last two projects. In fact, I just had do reverse engineer a full controls cabinet that was running a massive theater install. It was all DIN rail gear, and 100% custom.

Adding a specific DIN functionality would be great. I currently either build a custom Device Builder block called DIN, and name each circuit, or fuss around with the modular panel tool. Both will work, but neither are 'great'. Usually It means I have a location of "DIN2" defined that I drag things into on the create equipment area, instead of a Device or frame called "DIN2" inside a cabinet or rack.
I know the Window, Door and stair tool in VW have a ton of configurability. I'm not suggesting this tool goes to that length, but a specific DIN style rack tool would be huge.

I would use it, literally, today. Even if it is just a re-tooled version of the modular equipment tool.

3D is absolutely critical IMHO. I spec'd a bunch of DIN fiber termination gear. It fit. The patch connectors, however, all broke as soon as they shut the cabinet door. The electricians spaced the back screw panel of the 2'x2' box further than they should have. We didn't catch it, that was on me. Same story for the DIN network switch. I ended up modeling the whole thing in VW like a hack architect as a sketch to include with the plans. Today, we learned that we have 10 network switches in 10 separate Above Ground stainless steel boxes, all interconnected with fiber, and the GC asked "Do you guys need DIN rail inside those?"

So, the need is pretty fresh for me.

 

 

Edited Monday at 04:50 PM by tekbench