Modelling Electric Assemblies as polygons

[DominikS]

As an UNC-user in the role of a transmission system operator it is urgent to be able to model some of our Electric Assemblies as polygons.
Today only point features are supported in UNC. Using the "Structure Boundary" class is not sufficient, because those can not contain domain specific asset types, but it allows to use multiple domains.

• Some of our Electric Assemblies in substations are using a lot of space, and is really a polygon.
• Some of them are actual using square meters in the real world, not only point coordinates.

[DavidCrawford]

This is definitely an interesting idea.  Modelling the footprints of assemblies. I don't disagree with the intention of it.  But I would like a little clarification on why Structure Boundary features do not satisfy your requirements.

Specifically:

"Using the "Structure Boundary" class is not sufficient, because those can not contain domain specific asset types, but it allows to use multiple domains."

What does it mean that the cannot contain domain specific asset types?  An asset type is just an entry in a domain. There is nothing that would prevent you from creating a domain with domain specific things.  Substation (asset group):  Electric Sub, Gas Sub, Telco Sub (asset types).  And then if you only configured rules to allow electric sub to contain electric features, and gas sub to contain gas features. You would not be able to create containment between an electric sub and a gas feature.

Perhaps I'm just missing some part of this request. If you could please provide additional information or details, it would help a lot.

[JamesWright9]

What he means is, for each Domain you get a new Assembly feature class:

ElectricAssembly, GasAssembly, etc. But there is only ONE Structure network. It makes the UN's already extreme de-normalization even more extreme.

He could certainly do what you describe though so long as they are okay with sharing fields between domains on these features, which may or may not be ideal.

[KjetilNymoen_Elvia]

@DavidCrawford 

The structure boundary is a container for MULTILPE domains.
The electric assembly is a container for a SINGLE domain: Only Electric

We should not mix these two.

We should not model ELECTRIC in the STRUCTURE classes, because then we start to model a specific domain in the structure class, and that is not correct. We have to be able to model ELECTRIC in the specific domain classes.

Elvia has requested an enhancement on this:

#ENH-000137137 [Enhancement] Add the ability to have the Electric Assembly feature in a utility network be modeled as a polygon

Regards

Kjetil Nymoen, Elvia, Norway

[BarendNackaerts]

I can only totally agree with Kjetil.

Do not mix structures and domains.
An electric polygon should be in the electric domain and not in the common structure domain.

regards,
Barend

[utilitier]

Absolutely I agree with Kjetil Nymoen Elvia,
There is a associations between Electric and Structure but the rules work totally different

[LarryYoung]

What you describe makes sense, but what it would mean is adding a new feature class to every domain network.  Instead of having the 5 features classes (devices, junctions, assemblies, lines, and subnetlines) for each domain network we would then have 6.  This would be a very significant change for this one use case that would have an impact on every data model across all disciplines.

Other things currently being modeled in the structure boundary class (substations, cabinets, bays, etc.) could also be thought of as electric specific items, so would you also move them to an electric polygon assembly class?