Select to view content in your preferred language

Handling multi-fed subnetworks with differing Subnetwork names

1571
6
03-13-2023 03:04 AM
Status: Open
Jens_Dalsgaard
Frequent Contributor

Utility Network supports subnetworks fed from multiple subnetwork controllers [SNC's] assuming these all have the same subnetwork name assigned.

In case of multiple SNC's feeding the same area, features being part of such subnetwork will have an attribute listing all the SNC controller names feeding the area. 

Yet, if if more SNC's feed the same area, and these SNC's have differing subnetwork names the subnetwork (line feature)  is not generated - and error is generated only. 

When this happens, a user will need to debug the cause. That is, most likely find the switching device that should have been opened to serve as a tie point. This task would be quite a lot easier, if the user had the subnetwork line feature to look at in the map.

Assuming that ArcGIS does all the needed tracing to find the inconsistent SNC subnetwork names, it would be really nice, if UN actually returned the feature representing the illegal subnetwork line. Why not return a subnetwork line feature flagged as "Illegally fed from multiple SNC's with inconsistent subnetwork names."

Such improvement would offer a lot of value also during daily operation. Esri tends to show examples where a portion of the grid is temporarily de-energized (opening a switching device) to then be energized again (closing another switching device (a in effect often feeding from other substation). That is not how any DSO would do. You would not de-energize the grid, rather feed it from both sides temporarily to then shortly after to open a switch to once again make feeding 'correct'. It would be very useful to show the temporarily multi-fed part of the grid in a special color making everyone aware that a temporary situation exists.

 

6 Comments
RichardKoch

Jens,

Hopefully someone from ESRI also replies. As for my reply. I understand what you are requesting, and we talked about doing something similar as we developed our model. In the end we determined that such changes happen at too rapid of a pace and frequency for tracking in a GIS system. Especially when our ADMS already had this information. We opted for a web based ADMS viewer that allowed us to display AS OPERATED paralleled conditions like you described, and letting the GIS be the AS DESIGNED version of the field. Otherwise, we would need at least one (and possibly more) FTE/s for keeping he model in sync with all the updates from the DSO/s. Again, hopefully someone from the ESRI side also replies. Perhaps there is a use case I am not seeing. If so, please share. 

 

Best to you on getting things to work as you need. 

 

Richard Koch

Jens_Dalsgaard

Hi @RichardKoch 

I agree with the GIS not being and ADMS / OMS framework rather a repository for as-built grid documentation and normal switching position.

Yet, offering a more flexible subnetwork mgmt approach of (erroneously) multi-fed parts of the grid would also support better debugging - where is the missing tie-point. 

I had brief talk with R Krisher yesterday, and based on this, I believe we will create functionality aiming at supporting the debugging of missing tie points. Because this is needed.

Also, despite ADMS / OMS offering the live switching status handling (and more) I do see a potential for using GIS for handling live switching statuses of the extensive low-voltage grid as we see many utilities having their ADMS / OMS handle medium / high voltage only. 

For this we are looking into creating products delivering what subnetwork management functionality does not support.

RichardKoch

Hello back @Jens_Dalsgaard and @RobertKrisher 

Jens you make an excellent point that I had not thought of as we are in the middle of a massive UN deployment. Your comment about low voltage grids. The ability of the UN to handle loops and low voltage as it does was part of my main reason for recommending it. I have future plans on our building out of our quad fed secondary (low voltage multi feed) networks. We even prebuilt in features and other rules in preparation for this work. 

Second are my intentions for tools that I want to build for my planning engineers. 

Along those lines I would love to be involved with helping you and Robert work through these things. Best part is I currently have access to a massive living UN data set that we can play with. 

kochr@firstenergycorp.com and 419-202-1996 (work cell) call or text 

Jens_Dalsgaard

Interesting. We have massive UN data in a very high quality working with e.g., Norway's largest electric utility. Being European based and hence working with three phase, balanced grids, some differences thus exist between these data sets I assume. 

Yet, learning from each other benefits all. 

Please allow me to link some LinkedIn posts I have made recently (my profile holds many more):

Would like to learn some more about what you guys are doing / aiming at.

 

Best regards

Jens Dalsgaard

MikeMillerGIS

I am not sure if this will work for you, but you can cross feed subnetworks if you have directional devices below the controller to ensure the controllers cannot trace to each other.

MikeMillerGIS_0-1683735082153.png

 

Jens_Dalsgaard

Many of the double-feeding scenarios are in nature temporary and hence dealing with the requirements described above in a - let's call it - static way as suggested here doesn't seem right.

Following dialogue at IMGIS and internal dialogue I think we're more inclined to creating custom functionality to support business needs here. 

But, thanks for the input, Mike.