Multiple Subnetwork Controllers Error

Question

Enterprise 11.1, Pro 3.2, Utility Network version 6.

Hi All,

I was recently trying to update a subnetwork in my deployment between two electrical substations. This subnetwork needs to be able to reverse direction to be fed from one substation or the other at either of its ends. At one end I created the subnetwork controller device which is closed for its normal state and at the other end I created another subnetwork controller and left the device open. I gave that subnetwork controller a different name. My assumption was that leaving the device open would prevent the subnetwork controller from being associated with the line and that the two subnetworks would currently have nothing to do with each other, as open points prevent traversability and define subnetworks for the rest of my deployment as designed. However, when updating the subnetwork, I got the following error:

I'm not sure why it would behave like this when the second subnetwork is a single open device. Does anyone have some insight?

Ariggs · Answer

The problem for me is that a switch immediately downstream of our subnetwork controller doesn't exist in our system. I would rather not create a device that doesn't exist in the field for model only purposes. If this is a common issue, is it possible for the subnetwork controller functionality to be reworked so as to reflect the open point in the downstream terminal, or some other solution?

BogdanHristozov · Answer

We also have this situation very common. We are yet to migrate to the UN model and I can't confirm if this solves the problem, but I think setting the operating status of a switch, located immediately downstream of the subnetwork controller to OPEN will solve this problem.

JohnAlsup · Answer

The Device status of open or closed on a subnetwork controller feature has no impact for what is downstream of it, as the subnetwork starts at the downstream terminal.  Open or Closed only impact the path through the device.