Latest Contributions by Jens_Dalsgaard

A thought - what traversability condition barriers is the upstream trace configured with? Could it be, that junction feature asset group / type has an assigned category used as barrier?

If you're looking at setting subnetwork controllers in a balanced three phase grid as operated in large shares of the world outside USA, you may download the Volue UN Implementation Guide for Balanced Three Phase Distribution Grids that come with quite an extensive sample dataset. In this sample dataset, you may trace across tiers (though the dataset does hold subnetwork controllers feeding the high voltage tier - but you could easily set that up and test) https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielahaldy-sellmann_distribution-arcgis-utilitynetwork-activity-7467932356025180160-IMU7?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAACWW0oBhTZw9jD6THdVxH9ZpqeWHmmBeDU What this implementation guide promotes is setting up subnetwork controllers on the secondary (and tertiary) windings of the transformers. For substations with multiple parallel transformers you will then have two or three subnetwork controllers. Subnetwork controller name would then typically be: Substation 100 - T1 Sec Substation 100 - T2 Sec That is, unique naming. But as such transformers will often be operated in parallel and hence feed the same subnetwork, for both subnetwork controllers the Subnetwork name would typically be: Substation 100 for both subnetwork controllers

May I ask - what type of 'single line diagram'? Subway diagrams with no correlation with underlying geometries? Or diagrams keeping substations / switching locations about at the right place and then making connections in-between these clearer? I've done some tests generating such and would be interested to know what type of single-line diagram you're aiming for.

CIM based extracts from UN to PowerFactory works and is already in play at Denmark's second largest DSO feeding approximately 40% of the Danish land base and 800.000 meter points. As an alternative to the above suggested product, Volue offers our SaaS based UN CIM Extractor allowing you to export any section of your grid based on UN traces: https://www.volue.com/products-and-services/grid-planner. Plugs right into PowerFactory Reach out if interested

‎03-09-2026

This might be easier to reach once Esri delivers on the long awaited (but not short-term committed) 'trace override'. At least the way I understood this - as a way to have traces use switching statuses registered in a UN-external table instead of the switching status registered on the valve / switch.

‎03-04-2026

Oh, too lazy. Or - the work-around is too simple for me to bother 😉

‎03-03-2026

Yeah, well. I have found that selecting an error in the Error Inspector it will select the corresponding record in the dirty areas class. If you open the Dirty Areas table, you may then zoom to the error from here. Or from the standard Zoom To buttons. Seems like a bug - just never bothered to log it

‎02-26-2026

What is a loop? Allow me to describe a scenario not uncommon in an underground (cabled) network. As consumption increases in a given area, rather than removing an existing cable to add a new cable with a larger nominal current you might leave the existing cable and add a new, parallel cable with same electric properties (cheaper). This way the DSO doubles the amount that can supplied. Yet, such parallel cables would technically form a loop. On higher voltage it is not uncommon to use individual cables per phase rather than one cable holding all three phases. And you would want to document each of these three cables (each with appropriate phasing applied). Again, unless you take into consideration the phasing in the comprehension of a loop, such three cables would make up a loop. Finally, in part of the grid operated as meshed entire parts of the grid would become a myriad of loops. Hence, we need to allow looping in the grid. That said, I recognize loops often being caused by data quality issues, so perhaps a way to look for a useful solution would be to somehow flag certain loops as valid. Yet, how should we do this? I wouldn't want to update hundreds of features participating in a loop and there is no overarching loop-instance that we could flag as valid. Hmmm?

‎12-02-2025

I don't see the option for moving the idea as suggested - please elaborate: Anyhow, I will forward your answer "there's not much research required on the JavaScript side" to our developers

‎11-18-2025

Providing a product tailored to streamline grid editing and planning (Volue Grid Planner) we have a need for identifying split operation when a user splits a cable or an overhead line. Grid Planner is provided SaaS and uses the ArcGIS Javascript SDK. The justification behind this need is as follows: Following the planning of grid edits, the DSO needs a budgetary input / extract based on edits performed in the plan. How much cable, how many poles, ... Any new cable created in the plan (version) must be purchased. Yet, when splitting an existing cable one part retains its original ObjectID whereas the other part (the shorter line segment) is a 'new' feature getting a new ObjectID. With no way of catching the split, we cannot identify this new feature as 'not new but rather the result of a split). And hence the budgetary delivers a faulty output, since noone has to purchase a cable already there but just split in two What would we like Esri to provide to allow better business support? When executing a split operation through the ArcGIS Javascript SDK we need some way to identify the 'new' feature (the part after the split getting a new ObjectID) as the result of this split. The Split Method (Feature) provided in the ArcGIS Pro SDK returns 'The ObjectIDs of newly created features from the split operation.'. Split Method (Feature)—ArcGIS Pro This seems like exactly what is needed, as this would allow us to identify the 'new' feature as 'not new but rather the result of a split'. I will be available for further discussions if needed

‎09-05-2025

Using ArcGIS Pro v 3.5.2 I'd say it now works. Below you see a distance trace starting from the green trace starting point. In this trace I stop the trace at a certain network category, so it doesn't run 'the other way'. Here the distance is set to 425 meters: Here the distance is set to1,475 meters: Here the trace configuration used: This is where I set the trace to stop after a certain distance having been reached: And here I specify that I want the trace to only return cables and overhead lines. PLUS, and this is important, that I want the trace to be returned as an aggregated geometry (rather than as a selection).

‎09-02-2025

We have answers that I needed. Thank you. Brief comment on my way out. All the devices and the bus-bar are already contained in another structure complying to CIM and ERP requirements. It is not possible / desirable to change this. So, now wanting to also 'group' certain devices and bus-bars in some substations, the challenges are: We cannot use containment associations from this new compact equipment asset type since devices may only have one containment parent (makes sense) We cannot use structural attachments to this new compact equipment asset type since structural attachments do not work directly against line features. I had hoped, we could do a mix Structural attachment associations from the compact equipment to the devices AND containment association from the compact equipment to the bus-bar This is not supported, so we will do with structural attachment associations from the compact equipment to the devices and then either do without any relationship to the bus-bar or simply allow adding the bus-bar GlobalID as a manually entered attribute reference on the compact equipment. Thank you for the ping-pong.

‎09-02-2025

Not sure, I understand the suggested approach. You suggest ? using an electric device asset type to represent compact equipment and then make J-J connectivity associations to all devices and line features being part of the compact equipment? That would bypass all existing connectivity! What am I not getting right here?

‎09-01-2025

Initial note - this is not the Esri electric data model yet the white paper data model as released and documented by Elvia and Volue. Gain access to this white paper on how to implement utility network for balanced three phase distribution grid. Working with Norwegian DSO, Elvia, and Danish DSO, N1, substations and their interior are documented with great detail. Below is an example of a medium to low voltage substation. In the middle you see two MV/LV transformers. Everything above is medium voltage, and everything below is low voltage. Focusing in this context on the medium voltage part, what you see are two medium voltage bus-bars - one with two (three, one idle) line-bays (connected to cables) and a bay connecting to the other, right-hand side bus-bar. The other, right-hand side bus-bar holds two transformer-bays (connecting to the two transformers respectively. Within these bays you see switches, fault indicators, current transformers, etc. - individual features each representing a function in the grid Whereas in the map each switch, fault indicator, etc. is documented as individual point features, in real world what is here many features may come a one preconfigured unit - we call it a compact-equipment. Imagine the below subset of the shown substation being one compact equipment that is craned in as one gas-insulated unit. To facilitate this we are aiming to document the Compact Equipment unit as a structure junction object in utility network. This structure junction object asset type is registered as a structure (role type) and corresponding structural attachment rules support relating a compact equipment to all the device features. This all works very fine. Now, we need to also establish a relationship from the compact equipment to the bus-bar. Yet, according to this Esri documentation structural attachments are not supported against line asset types: Feature restrictions—ArcGIS Pro | Documentation Not stopping for anything, we got a new idea. We keep the structural attachment relations to all the devices (point features) as described above And then we add to this containment associations from the compact equipment to the line feature (the bus-bar) We cannot use containment associations for all relationships to the compact equipment, since point features / devices may only have one containment parent, and the devices are already contained in another container (a substation hierarchy) containment. But, that's OK - we can live with using structural attachments to the devices and then handle the bus-bar through a containment association (because line feature do support several containment parents). SO, we register the compact equipment asset type as container (as well) and add corresponding rules allowing it to contain bus-bar asset types: Yet, when applying the asset package, we get this error message: Is it because: We apply the asset package using an oooold ArcGIS Pro (v3.1.4)? Will using a newer version of ArcGIS Pro fix this? An asset type (the compact equipment) cannot be both a structure or a container? we are not smart enough? We cannot find answers in available documentation.

‎08-19-2025

The thing about SMEs are, that they are likely to want solutions capable of solving all their problems - who wouldn't want that 🙂 The thing is, that just as saying I want a Lamborghini I have to match my craving with my capabilities. Am I (and the other family members) capable of driving / managing such sports car. Are my financial situation ready for the price that comes with such beauty? As a trusted advisor (I assume, that's your role) you must highlight the capabilities of a full implementation of utility network. As outline the capabilities and limitations of simpler implementations. They will want all capabilities. And then you need to also balance this - or have the SMEs balance this - with data maturity today, organizational maturity today. Assuming they will emphasize the need to grow as organization and hence move from where they are now to become a more mature organization you will likely agree. But you must then ask the SMEs the put forth a plan for how to deliver on this transition. How will they deliver the higher, consistent, and needed data quality - what money and what resources? A plan that must be backed by their management. By doing so, as trusted advisor you present them with opportunities and challenges, and help the organization on their path towards streamlining business processes. You move from 'simply doing IT / UN' to engaging in change management.

Online Status	Online
Date Last Visited	Tuesday

My Ideas

Latest Contributions by Jens_Dalsgaard

Re: SubnetLine covers whole network but Upstream/Downstream Trace does'nt reach to/from controllers

Re: Subnetwork Modelling in Esri UN

Re: Has anyone created a One Line Diagram or has employed a third party?

Re: How to integrate between Gis data and power factory ?

Re: Isolation trace - Simulate whatifs scenarios

Re: How to use Error Inspector's Zoom To and Pan To

Re: How to use Error Inspector's Zoom To and Pan To

Re: Electric Radial Partitioned Tier Source– Why Are Loops Not Flagged as Errors?

Re: Detecting split operation

Detecting split operation

Re: Distance trace - how to?

Re: Setting asset type to both structure and container

Re: Setting asset type to both structure and container

Setting asset type to both structure and container

Re: Choosing the right model for your stakeholders and subject matter experts

Re: How to use Error Inspector's Zoom To and Pan T...

Re: Electric Radial Partitioned Tier Source– Why A...

Re: Distance trace - how to?

Re: Choosing the right model for your stakeholders...

Re: Migration from Geometric to Utility network re...

European Utility Network Community (UNC)