Comportamento projetado da Válvula de Alívio no Modelo de Informação do Governo Local

Question

<\/HEAD> O Modelo de Informação do Governo Local da ESRI espera que as válvulas de alívio estejam em sua classe de feição wControlValve, significando que possuem um mecanismo de controle de pressão (são automáticas, não operadas manualmente). Em nosso Distrito, as válvulas de alívio são operadas manualmente para limpeza. Elas diferem das válvulas de liberação de ar, que são "automáticas".<\/P> Do ponto de vista da análise da rede geométrica, as "válvulas de alívio" e a válvula que abrimos manualmente para permitir o fluxo pela saída devem ser separadas no esquema? Por exemplo, para análise da sequência de limpeza?<\/P> Atualmente, o "dispositivo" de válvula de alívio na caixa é representado por um único ativo GIS. Isso inclui a saída e uma válvula integrada que deve ser operada manualmente<\/EM>. Esta válvula é especificada como uma válvula esférica (Ball valve) em nossos padrões do Distrito, mas algumas válvulas antigas de alívio têm válvulas gaveta integradas.<\/P> Para levar em conta a operação manual da válvula e a operação automática da saída da válvula de alívio, devemos migrar as válvulas de alívio atuais tanto para a classe de feição wControlValve como piControlValveType "Blowoff", quanto para a classe de feição wSystemValve como ValveType "Ball"? Provavelmente desejaríamos sinalizar a SystemValve como uma válvula de alívio, assim como as válvulas Hydrant são atualmente sinalizadas no LGIM.<\/P> Isso ainda pode causar erros de topologia, devido à coincidência geométrica. Poderíamos resolver isso movendo cada ControlValve blow off 0,1' na direção oposta ao da tubulação principal mais próxima? Assim, elas estariam sempre "a jusante" da válvula, operariam automaticamente, mas não receberiam fluxo a menos que a SystemValve "a montante" seja aberta.<\/SPAN><\/P><\/P>Qualquer feedback sobre como outras concessionárias de água estão lidando com isso seria apreciado.<\/SPAN><\/P><\/P>Obrigado,<\/SPAN><\/P><\/P>Joe Bryant<\/SPAN><\/P>Especialista GIS<\/SPAN><\/P>Distrito de Água Carmichael<\/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?