nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Meilleure pratique pour la gestion des points de mesure de gaz (ou points d'interconnexion ou d'interception) et des vannes en tant que contrôleurs de sous-réseau dans Utility Network

CoronaGis

Bonjour à tous,

Je travaille avec un Esri Utility Network pour un système de distribution de gaz et j'ai une question spécifique concernant la meilleure pratique pour gérer les points de mesure de gaz (PM) - (ou points d'interconnexion ou d'interception) - et les vannes en tant que contrôleurs de sous-réseau.

Dans notre système actuel (réseau géométrique), les districts sont définis par ces trois objets :

vannes
points de mesure
points d'interconnexion ou d'interception

Voici une illustration simplifiée du scénario :

La ligne verte représente le District A.
La ligne bleue représente le District B
La vanne (représentée par un symbole papillon) est située à la frontière entre le District A et le District B.
Le point de mesure (PM) est très proche de la vanne (à environ 1 mètre) et appartient au District B.

Si nous configurons à la fois la vanne et le PM comme contrôleurs de sous-réseau, cela provoquera des problèmes avec la validation du sous-réseau car le tuyau du milieu (X) qui en réalité fait partie du district B serait défini comme un nouveau mini district.

Mes doutes et questions sont :

Est-il recommandé d'utiliser seulement les vannes comme contrôleurs de sous-réseau et de traiter les points de mesure (PM) comme des actifs réguliers logiquement connectés aux vannes ? Dans quel groupe fcl/actif/type d'actif est-il préférable de placer les PM ? Quelles règles pouvons-nous utiliser (jonction-arête ou placer le point de mesure à distance du pipeline) ?
Est-il recommandé d'utiliser seulement les vannes comme contrôleurs de sous-réseau avec un attribut qui identifie qu'elles sont aussi utilisées comme PM ?
Alternativement, existe-t-il une meilleure pratique pour modéliser à la fois les points de mesure et les vannes comme contrôleurs de sous-réseau lorsqu'ils sont si proches et appartiennent au même district ?
Comment d'autres implémentations d'utility network ont-elles géré ce type de situation ?
Existe-t-il des règles ou configurations spécifiques de sous-réseau qui peuvent empêcher les erreurs de validation dans ce cas ?

Merci d'avance pour tout conseil ou exemple !
Astrid

Trouver plus de publications taguées avec

Gas

Pipeline

Accepted answers

Ayan Palit

@CoronaGis Thanks for posting your use case with details and drawing. I encourage organizations to conceive the best way to model the network, rather than duplicate what a legacy system used to do. Utility Network has much broader modelling capabilities with greater possibilities.

Here are my comments:

Start at identifying the subnetworks for your gas distribution system. A great resource for this is: Managing Gas and Pipeline Networks: Creating Subnetworks
Is District similar to a pressure zone? If so, Compressor or Regulator are the prime candidates to act as the subnetwork controller for Pressure tier.
Controllable valves are the prime candidates to act as the subnetwork controller for isolation tier.
Measurement points do not impact network behavior and therefore not good choice for 'device' and hence 'subnetwork controller' (only devices can act as controllers).
Assuming use of the Gas and Pipeline Referencing Utility Network Foundation , PipelineDevice has a yes/no flag field, that can be used to indicate Measurement or SCADA indicator. Note this is simply an attribute, and doesn't impact network behavior.

Utility companies often have unique business requirements that drive the modelling decisions. Hoping others in the community will share their implementation advice.

All comments

Ayan Palit

Here are my comments:

Start at identifying the subnetworks for your gas distribution system. A great resource for this is: Managing Gas and Pipeline Networks: Creating Subnetworks
Is District similar to a pressure zone? If so, Compressor or Regulator are the prime candidates to act as the subnetwork controller for Pressure tier.
Controllable valves are the prime candidates to act as the subnetwork controller for isolation tier.
Measurement points do not impact network behavior and therefore not good choice for 'device' and hence 'subnetwork controller' (only devices can act as controllers).
Assuming use of the Gas and Pipeline Referencing Utility Network Foundation , PipelineDevice has a yes/no flag field, that can be used to indicate Measurement or SCADA indicator. Note this is simply an attribute, and doesn't impact network behavior.

Utility companies often have unique business requirements that drive the modelling decisions. Hoping others in the community will share their implementation advice.

RobertKrisher

It depends on the kind of valve between the two districts and what tier the subnetworks belong to. I'll call out @TomDeWitte for the final design intention of the model since it doesn't contain any definition of a district metering area. At the end of the day, it is your model, and you should configure it to meet your needs.

If we interpret your question through the way the model comes configured, I have to assume that the district is either a system, pressure zone, or isolation zone. You can look at the data model to see what devices are allowed to control subnetworks to infer how the model was designed to be used:

System - If these districts represent different systems and the PM is actually a meter, then this could be represented as a system subnetwork where the PM is a Custody Transfer Meter.

Pressure Zone - If the valve regulates pressure, this could be represented as a pressure subnetwork where the valve is a regular and the subnetwork controller. The PM would be a Pressure Monitoring Device.

Isolation Zone - If the valve is a Controllable Valve between two arbitrary areas of your network that you want to be isolation zones (it seems unlikely, but I'll mention it here). The

If it's some kind of metering district, then we'd be talking outside of the current configuration, and I'd want to defer to Tom before I exercise too much creativity.

TomDeWitte

When I looked at your diagram, I interpreted it to be at least 2 OVERLAPPING subnetworks. The Gas Measurement Meter (PM), I would guess to be what we call a custody transfer meter, which is one of the types of device our gas and pipeline industry model uses as a subnetwork controller to distinguish between two system subnetworks. The valve at the edge of your districts could be a pressure regulating valve, which our gas and pipeline industry model uses as a subnetwork controller to distinguish between two pressure subnetworks, or the valve could be an controllable valve used for emergencies, in which case we use that type of valve as a subnetwork controller to distinguish between two isolation zones. The pipe between the two devices can belong to more than one type of subnetwork. That pipe will participate in a system subnetwork, a pressure subnetwork and a isolation subnetwork.

Tom

Rejoindre la conversation

Les membres connectés peuvent publier, suivre les mises à jour, et plus encore. Nouveau ici ? Inscrivez-vous gratuitement.

Liens rapides

Community Help
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.