|
POST
|
Have experience in electric utility and UN only. Yet, I am quite sure, that m-enablement is NOT needed.
... View more
01-31-2023
09:48 AM
|
1
|
2
|
2541
|
|
POST
|
I would say, that the answer to this depends very much on the maturity of the existing ArcGIS geometric network data. If it is simpler grid representation with simpler business process support, then simpler migration tools / objectives may be used. If on the other hand the source represents a true digital twin supporting advanced business processes, then you should aim for something with more capabilities hence delivering immediate business value generation upon migrated data. Allow me to refer to a post on what I mean when speaking of digital twin: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/migrating-arcgis-utility-network-jens-dalsgaard/ Best regards Jens Dalsgaard
... View more
01-31-2023
08:01 AM
|
1
|
0
|
1472
|
|
BLOG
|
No offense. I think you should have some technical writer do this explanation. Someone not having your deep understanding 😉 This sentence requires a higher exam in negation interpretation: The item specified in the row will not be added or applied to the output when this category is unchecked only if it is not set to Evaluated in any other category that is checked on.
... View more
01-26-2023
05:55 AM
|
0
|
0
|
2677
|
|
POST
|
Stacked Junctions is likely the error (dirty area) that you will encounter with such data. UN is unforgiving on this (as it is with duplicate vertices, self-intersecting lines, etc.) You will need to create a program that displaces some of these features (e.g., an inch into the air) whist maintaining correct connectivity.
... View more
01-16-2023
10:25 AM
|
1
|
0
|
817
|
|
POST
|
Will do so through the Elvia Premium Support (as it is related to / documented on Elvia UN data). Thanks for feedback, Mike.
... View more
11-30-2022
02:16 AM
|
0
|
0
|
4260
|
|
POST
|
OK, thanks for the feedback, Mike. Where may I read more on this bug, and what is the priority / time-frame on fixing it?
... View more
11-26-2022
08:57 AM
|
0
|
0
|
4310
|
|
POST
|
By the way - allow me to mention that performing a similar downstream trace from the HV/MV transformer in a migration from a different source using the exact same asset package template the trace propagates nicely into the low voltage mesh. Hence, I doubt it has anything to do with the schema / data model configuration.
... View more
11-23-2022
10:21 PM
|
0
|
0
|
4412
|
|
POST
|
We're using the UNC data model from the Utility Network Community. John Alsup / Mike Miller know it. I will send information about tiers and terminals tomorrow.
... View more
11-23-2022
11:07 AM
|
0
|
0
|
4428
|
|
POST
|
I experience inexplicable and inconsistent downstream trace results. I have really tried myself understanding what is going on - I do not get it though. From a high voltage substation (HV/MV) I set a trace start flag on the secondary winding on one of the transformers and request a downstream trace - se screen dump below: As the trace is set to continue into low voltage (target tier), of course I would expect the trace to do so. In the below screen dump, you see that it does not continue into the low voltage mesh (blue lines): And zooming into a medium voltage substation (MV/LV) it is clear that the trace stops at the MV/LV transformer - se screen shot below: Really strange, cause I have successfully run an update subnetworks on the low voltage mesh, so I know that the trace from this transformer and downstream should work. Now, moving the trace start point (from the HV/MV transformer secondary) to just outside this substation and running the exact same trace I reach this inconsistent result that you see below - the trace continuing through the MV/LV transformer and into the low voltage mesh as configured in the GP: Enlighten me please, Esri (or someone else). I cannot see me doing anything wrong here - I might though. Or UN might have a bug? One thing is for sure - you have a puzzled user.
... View more
11-23-2022
06:53 AM
|
1
|
11
|
5319
|
|
POST
|
If what you need is to visualize the trace result at a higher scale, ask yourself if you actually need to show the features at this higher scale. If not, the answer to your need may be to simply output the trace result as Aggregated Lines - a graphic element built with the geometries of the trace result. Such graphic element will not be turned off a higher scales (unless you actually do something to make the do so).
... View more
11-16-2022
05:55 AM
|
0
|
0
|
1284
|
|
IDEA
|
For a meshed network subnetworks meet at open breaking units (as well as at the subnetwork controller). Typically having a subnetwork per transformer (for three winding transformers we would even have two subnetworks) very quickly an electric utility will end up having tens of thousands of subnetworks. Each of the subnetworks (Subnet Lines) generated will have a subnetwork name together with a few other attributes (https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/help/data/utility-network/subnetline-feature-class.htm). Coloring Subnet Lines offers a quick overview of how the grid is fed and where tie breakers exist. Yet, coloring the many thousand subnet lines (coloring by subnetwork name, what else can I do)) we get this warning: Well, I have to click Yes to have some sort of useful coloring. Besides likely not being nice to performance having coloring based on a very large number of unique values, we also quickly see the problem: Adjacent subnetworks (subnet lines) are assigned colors very alike (or perhaps the same). In the screen dump below, the green arrow indicates a place where adjacent subnetworks are assigned contrasting colors whereas at the red arrow two adjacent subnetworks are assigned the same color: My propsal to Esri is, that when updating subnetworks, you also assign a coloring-number to each subnetwork (an extra attribute to be added). Not a color code (#3380ff) - just a number from 1 and up. Then I may choose whether 1 is represented by red, green, ... In a previous proof of concept, I showed that the entire low voltage grid (real world data for a low voltage grid feeding several hundred thousand customers) could be colored using less than 15 colors (it's years ago - I don't recall the exact number - it was less). As the utility network is persisted in a graph, without being an expert on these matters I believe such coloring-numbers could be easily generated using the so-called graph edge-coloring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_coloring This way I could symbolize my subnet lines based on not thousands of subnetwork names but based on less than 15 coloring numbers. And I would be sure that adjacent subnetworks would be assigned contrasting colors; It's quite a lot easier to define 15 contrasting colors than to do the same with thousands...
... View more
10-26-2022
04:18 AM
|
4
|
1
|
1229
|
|
BLOG
|
What am I getting wrong here? Reading the 'The Configuration field uses a domain with three different values' section, I would conclude that: Scenario 1 would include Transformer, Meter, and Circuit Breakers subtypes only (NOT Switch nor Fuse as these are excluded) Scenario 2 would include all subtypes except Fuse (as this is excluded) Scenario 3 would include all subtypes except Switch (as this is excluded) Scenario 4 would include ... ? ... all ... ? ... subtypes (as no configuration removes subtypes)? If this is correct, the above description seems incorrect. More likely, I'm not getting the approach 😉
... View more
09-23-2022
03:21 AM
|
0
|
0
|
3062
|
|
POST
|
What you report as an error could very well be a real-world scenario - parallel connections (overhead lines / cables) between two point in the network. You'll likely have to do your own analysis to find line features with duplicate geometries.
... View more
09-04-2022
11:28 PM
|
1
|
0
|
737
|
|
POST
|
I doubt changing tolerance is the right approach. It'll likely render new issues - e.g., performance. And what would be the 'correct' tolerance. Much better would be having Esri delivering a script parsing data to be loaded and removing irrelevant vertices; that is an arbitrary of two too closely placed vertices, of course not removing end-vertices as this may impair connectivity.
... View more
04-08-2022
04:28 AM
|
0
|
1
|
2748
|
| Title | Kudos | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 09-05-2025 02:34 AM | |
| 2 | 08-19-2025 04:36 AM | |
| 1 | 01-31-2023 08:01 AM | |
| 1 | 10-28-2024 08:22 AM | |
| 2 | 10-21-2024 03:45 AM |
| Online Status |
Offline
|
| Date Last Visited |
12-18-2025
12:50 AM
|