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; } } }

Best Practice voor het Beheren van Gasmeetpunten (of aansluit- of onderscheppingspunten) en Kleppen als Subnetwerkcontrollers in Utility Network

CoronaGis

Hallo allemaal,

Ik werk met een Esri Utility Network voor een gasdistributiesysteem en ik heb een specifieke vraag over de best practice voor het omgaan met gasmeetpunten (PM) - (of aansluit- of onderscheppingspunten) - en kleppen als subnetwerkcontrollers.

In ons huidige systeem (geometrisch netwerk) worden districten gedefinieerd door deze drie objecten:

kleppen
meetpunten
aansluit- of onderscheppingspunten

Hier is een vereenvoudigde illustratie van het scenario:

De groene lijn vertegenwoordigt District A.
De blauwe lijn vertegenwoordigt District B
De klep (afgebeeld als een vlindersymbool) bevindt zich op de grens tussen District A en District B.
Het meetpunt (PM) ligt heel dicht bij de klep (ongeveer 1 meter afstand) en behoort tot District B.

Als we zowel de klep als het PM configureren als subnetwerkcontrollers, veroorzaakt dit problemen met de subnetwerkvalidatie omdat de middelste pijp (X) die in werkelijkheid deel uitmaakt van district B, zou worden gedefinieerd als een nieuw mini-district.

Mijn twijfels en vragen zijn:

Is het aan te raden om alleen kleppen te gebruiken als subnetwerkcontrollers en meetpunten (PM) te behandelen als reguliere assets die logisch verbonden zijn met kleppen? In welke fcl/assetgroep/assettype is het beter om het PM te plaatsen? Welke regels kunnen we gebruiken (knooppunt-rand of het meetpunt weg van de leiding plaatsen)?
Is het aan te raden om alleen kleppen te gebruiken als subnetwerkcontrollers met een attribuut dat aangeeft dat ze ook als PM worden gebruikt?
Is er eventueel een best practice om meetpunten en kleppen beide te modelleren als subnetwerkcontrollers wanneer ze zo dicht bij elkaar liggen en tot hetzelfde district behoren?
Hoe hebben andere utility network-implementaties dit soort situaties aangepakt?
Zijn er specifieke subnetwerkregels of configuraties die validatiefouten in dit geval kunnen voorkomen?

Alvast bedankt voor alle adviezen of voorbeelden!
Astrid

Vind meer berichten getagd met

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

Doe mee aan het gesprek

Aangemelde leden kunnen berichten plaatsen, updates volgen en meer. Nieuw hier? Registreer een gratis account.

Snelle Links

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