Sk

3 conductor terminal

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1 3 conductor terminal

Hello.

I am trying to create a terminal that can accomodate 3 conductors, all internally connected.  In particular, https://www.phoenixcontact.com/en-us/products/multi-conductor-terminal-b... I have seen how you make a 4 conductor stacked terminal, by going to the stacked view and bridging them.  What I tried was to create the terminal as a 4 conductor terminal, and deleting one of the terminals on one of the levels.  When I do, and try to open the stacked view, it doesn't come up.  Is there a way to do this?

Thanks

Like this?

Thanks for posting on the forum.

The link you provided doesn't seem to work unfortunately. We get a '404 page not found' error.
However, we believe your terminal looks something like this:

If that is the case, and your end goal is to achieve a terminal strip layout that uses this type of format (see below), we can help.
 
 
B, M, T stand for bottom, middle, top.
Even though it is a single level terminal, SkyCAD needs this type of terminal to be defined as a 2-level stacked terminal for it to work in SkyCAD.
 
Please let us know if that looks and sounds acceptable to you, or if you're looking for something different.
Yes, that is the terminal I

Yes, that is the terminal I was trying to create.  I am fine with it as being a stacked terminal, even though it is on one level.  That's what I was trying to do actually.  I opened up a 4 wire terminal.  Then on the second level, I deleted one connection port on that level, to have only 3 connection points.  But it wouldn't go into stacked view anymore after that.  

I will put in my environment for review.  The project is Project 1_3.  The terminal I was working on is 3209549.

 

Thanks

 

We've made the modification for you

Then on the second level, I deleted one connection port on that level, to have only 3 connection points. But it wouldn't go into stacked view anymore after that.  
Indeed, that would not work.
Even with the solution we're giving, in the stacked terminal list view, you would still have a total of two connection ports (two per level).
That cannot be changed.
However, your terminal strip layout view would look as we showed in our previous reply.
In the stacked terminal list view, you would just have to ignore the one connection port that is not represented on the terminal strip layout view.

We have modified your 3209549 catalogue part so that it always shows in the terminal strip layout view as depicted above.
You can open Project 4 to see an example of how it works.

Simply replace your environment with the attached.
Important: if you've done some work from the time you uploaded your environment, your work will be lost. If you don't want that to happen, let us know and we'll provide instructions on how to do the modification yourself so you don't lose any work.

Please let us know if this works for you or if you have any questions.

Thanks, that does help.  It

Thanks, that does help.  It does bring up another question though.  If I have a stack of two tier terminals that are all bridged together, which I tend to do with my power and commons, and I do a resolve connectivity, only the upper tier populates with connections.  The lower tier does not.  Is this how its supposed to work on multi level terminals?  

Thanks

 

It depends on a few things.

Great. Thanks for letting us know that helps.

If I have a stack of two tier terminals that are all bridged together, which I tend to do with my power and commons, and I do a resolve connectivity, only the upper tier populates with connections.  The lower tier does not.  Is this how its supposed to work on multi level terminals?  
It depends on a few things.
Can that situation be seen in the environment you sent us? If so, please mention where.
If not, please upload a package of your project, and mention which terminal strip we should look at. To make a package of your project, save your project, then select it, go to the 'Export' tab and select 'Package project for deployment'. It will create a special project package file that you can upload to your next reply on this forum discussion.
Note: your project privacy is safe. Only SkyCAD staff can see the file you upload to the forum.

I will attach my current

I will attach my current environment.  I have been working on 

I have some strange things going on with project 1_3 and 1_4.  What I did was hand resolving all the terminals by using the connect feature, which can be time consuming and why I was trying to get the resolve connectivity to work.  In 1_4 you will see I was working with TB1.  What I am seeing is that even though I hand connected each of the terminal blocks, there are more blocks that are below that seem to have a connection but don't show anything connected in the stacked terminal view.  Also, the TB number in the schematic don't match the terminal that it is connected to.  I tried this again with TB3 and some motor symbols.  I created the symbols, added the terminals, changed the P/N to the catalog P/N, and bridged all the connections.  Then resolved the connections.  I also attached an image for you to see what I am seeing.  

Thanks for your help.

Image: 
Thanks for that

Looking at your screenshot, we see what you mean.
That said, we don't think briding all those terminals together is the correct thing to do, since that would create a short-circuit.

Here is what we did to get the result you're looking for:

  1. Deleted those terminals from the schematics
  2. Insert new terminal symbols
  3. From the stacked terminal list view, select all the terminals, go to the Terminal Strip Tools and select Group stack terminals, choosing 2 levels and 'sequential' order, then OK
  4. Select all the terminals again, choose Assign from catalogue and choose 3209578
  5. Run Renumber Wires to re-calculate the wire numbers (usually a good idea to do before Resolve Connectivity)
  6. Select the terminal strip itself and choose Resolve Connectivity

Doing that gave us this result:

Please let us know if that helps.

My example of using a motor

My example of using a motor was probably a bad one, as you mentioned that it wouldn't make sense shorting it out.  

I did figure this out though.  I was using normal terminal blocks for what should have been distribution blocks.  Once I watched the distribution block tutorial, I was able to create my power and common busses with stacked terminals.

 

Thanks

 

Great!

In some situations normal terminal symbols would be best.
In other situations distribution terminals symbols would be best.

Thanks for letting us know it worked out!