Comportamiento diseñado de la válvula de alivio en el Modelo de Información del Gobierno Local

Question

<\/HEAD> El Modelo de Información del Gobierno Local de ESRI espera que las válvulas de alivio estén en su clase de entidad wControlValve, lo que significa que tienen un mecanismo de control de presión (son automáticas, no operadas manualmente). En nuestro Distrito, las válvulas de alivio se operan manualmente para el enjuague. Se diferencian de las válvulas de liberación de aire, que son "automáticas".<\/P> Desde el punto de vista del análisis de redes geométricas, ¿deberían separarse en el esquema las "válvulas de alivio" y la válvula que abrimos manualmente para permitir el flujo a través de la salida? Por ejemplo, para el análisis de secuencia de enjuague?<\/P> Actualmente, el "dispositivo" de alivio en la cámara está representado por un solo activo GIS. Esto incluye la salida y una válvula integrada que debe ser operada manualmente<\/EM>. Esta válvula está especificada como una válvula Ball en los estándares de nuestro Distrito, pero algunas válvulas antiguas tienen válvulas compuerta integradas.<\/P> Para tener en cuenta la operación manual de la válvula y la operación automática de la salida de alivio, ¿deberíamos migrar las válvulas de alivio actuales tanto a la clase de entidad wControlValve como piControlValveType "Blowoff", y a la clase de entidad wSystemValve como ValveType "Ball"? Probablemente querríamos marcar la SystemValve como una válvula de alivio, al igual que las válvulas Hydrant están marcadas actualmente en el LGIM.<\/P> Esto aún podría causar errores topológicos debido a que son coincidentes geométricamente. ¿Podríamos resolver esto moviendo cada ControlValve blow off 0.1' en dirección opuesta a la tubería principal más cercana? Entonces siempre estarían "aguas abajo" de la válvula, operarían automáticamente, pero no recibirían flujo a menos que se abra la SystemValve "aguas arriba".<\/SPAN><\/P><\/P>Cualquier comentario sobre cómo otras utilities de agua están manejando esto sería apreciado.<\/SPAN><\/P><\/P>Gracias,<\/SPAN><\/P><\/P>Joe Bryant<\/SPAN><\/P>Especialista GIS<\/SPAN><\/P>Carmichael Water District<\/SPAN><\/P><\/BODY><\/HTML>

JoeBryant2 · Answer

Thanks for your assistance, Michael (and Maria).

Currently we don't need much detail - the location of the vault lid, which dead end it is attached to, and the fact that it is a "blow off" seems to be sufficient. We wouldn't ever replace just the valve part of the blow off if it was faulty - we would replace the whole device. Our current spec calls for the blow-off device to have an integral ball valve that we manually open for flushing (it is normally closed; not automatic or pressure controlled). We do have older blow offs with gate valves, but the valve type is not information we are using currently. I assume the guys can tell in the field what type of valve they are operating for flushing and can adjust to prevent water hammer. I also assume you wouldn't ever "throttle" a blow off - you'd want it full-open for flushing. But again, there could be exceptions.

We are not currently linking these blow off assets from the GIS to a separate asset management system, but may do so in the future, although it would probably just be from newly stocked and installed assets forward. And again, there would likely be one single inventory number for the blow off device with an integrated ball valve as that is how they are ordered.

In our LGIM migration we decided we want to stick to the schema as close as possible so that most templates are "plug and play". Currently we decided to use the wControlValve feature class with a type of "blow off" to be consistent. But we could create a new wSystemValve type in the future as you mentioned.

I think I understand that the geometric network won't be affected by either choice, as it is best practice to only assign "sources" and not "sinks" in a pressurized pipe network. I am mainly wondering how these blow offs are being accounted for in hydraulic modelling applications like Innovyse InfoWaterPro. I would like to be able to run analysis to improve our unidirectional flushing methods in the future. The QRY for flushing devices would be slightly simpler if the hydrants and the blow offs were in the same feature class. But if this is accounted for we will adjust our model to fit.

Thanks again.

MikeMillerGIS · Answer

Joe,

What level of detail do you need on your manual blows?  Do you need to know they type of valve?  Do you need to map the valve to your CMMS?  Could you add a new type of Manual Blow off to the control valves and would this be enough?  I do not feel we ever properly models blow offs as there are regional differences and variations of the devices.  It would be good to understand all the different variations so we can include these in the utility network model we are working on.

Anonymous User · Answer

Michael Miller‌, would you know what other utilities are doing in this case?