I am trying to figure out if a switch associated to a single junction can have it's Open/Closed connectivity pass through that junction.
In the past (due to a VERY niche issue with a small local utility), we had a line end at the end of each line segment. In scenarios like this, where we had two coindicant line ends, we offset them by a Z value and associated the switches to each line end. In that way, because there was a physical break between the lines (I assume), the switch's functionality passed through to the network and the separate subnetworks were able to build.
I'm wondering if we can reduce the complexity a bit by taking a single junction that meets both lines, associating a switch to it, and having the function hold so that the subnetworks do not bleed into each other? I have tried doing this in Pro a few times but it doesn't appear to be working. Coming here for a sanity check and/or advice on how to tweak the set up so it works.
Any advice is appreciated!
The simplest is to move the switch to the end of each line and remove the line end. If you try to associate the two line ends to one terminal, you are bypassing the switch. The lines ends would need to be associated with different terminals for the switch to break the current.
Mike, if we were to replace the Disconnect Switch with Load Break switches, could that work? I've noticed when setting Association Rules that Load Breaks require you to specify an SS:S1 or SS:S2 terminal, but Disconnects are Single Terminal only.
It could, but I am pretty sure in the most recent model, we made all switch have terminals.