Overhead Bidirectional Three Phase Recloser

[esri]

Overhead Bidirectional Three Phase Recloser

[MikeMillerGIS]

@MichaelZeiler @hCrothers toms feedback logged

[MichaelZeiler]

Here is a partial revision of the recloser model per Tom's comments. Items 1 and 2 are addressed. However, there are some open points for discussion:
3. It's complicated. The transformers are energized from arresters and they power the recloser and controller.
4. John had email with Tom and told Tom that these are in fact independently phase operated reclosers, so Tom agreed they are separate features
5. This is related to 3 and complicated. The crux of the matter is that the connectivity association between the controller and reclosers is NOT power flow, but control. So these aren't true loops. We need to discuss how to handle control/communication/command/measurement (SCADA and other) devices as they are connected, but not in the same way as normal electric devices through which power flows. Should this class of SCADA-like devices be modeled in a separate domain network? This is a big discussion.

[MichaelZeiler]

@MikeMillerGIS as I work through these configurations, it's clear that there are modeling decisions to be made. This work is not a cut-and-dry rendering of models from the PPT that @hCrothers shared with me. Most of these configurations from the PPT raise issues that need discussion. If you agree, I'll start opening issues when I come up with a model that needs discussion before it can be considered done.

[jalsup]

The small transformers are typically protected, meaning the arrester is internal to the transformer. No need to connect it to an additional arrester.

I think we need to have a big conversation around SCADA and Controllers (which are may not be SCADA controller, but programmable). I will setup a call for next week.

[MichaelZeiler]

Yes, we need to discuss SCADA type devices. Erik sent me a PDF on reclosers and below is my reply to him:

This PDF is a nice summary of reclosers. Particularly useful are the fifth and sixth slides on recloser basics and internals.

A key modeling issue is how to handle the connections between the current sensor, relay/controller, and actuator? Because that's a loop.

Should we model the recloser as a three-terminal device? And apply a terminal path configuration that leaves the actuator terminal always open? That seems lame.

What bothers me is that this type of connectivity (between sensors and actuators) is different from how we model other types of connectivity. What I mean is that I think connectivity should be reserved for a resource flow, i.e. electricity or water or gas. While there is a small current to operate the sensors and actuators, this should not be considered as part of the electrical distribution network.

In a substation, there are similar sets of relays/instrument transformers that control breakers and these form loops galore if modeled as part of the electric network.

I think we need to think deeply about how to model connectivity among devices that measure, control, communicate and interact with the distribution network but do not directly convey electric power. They receive power from the network, often with transformers to drop voltage, but they are not directly part of the distribution network. They are a kind of parallel network. Maybe a separate domain network?

I don't know much about cathodic networks, but are they an analogue in how they connect to the gas/water network?

Mike

[jalsup]

I think the SCADA and Programmable controllers as a separate domain network makes sense. But it is a device that connects to the electric domain. It must get power from the low side of a transformer, either dedicated to connected to a typical distribution transformer. I don't really like using the "extra terminal with no path" idea either. We need a home for these devices as most of our customers have them in their data (unit tables related to Dynamic Protective Devices). We do not want to release a model that losses customer information.

[MikeMillerGIS]

We will never get this model out if we keep adding complexity. We need to strictly model the devices and connection of the electric network. We will have to evaluate SCADA and Control at a later date. If that information.

Data model changes logged here
https://github.com/ArcGIS/utility-network-configurations/issues/1001
https://github.com/ArcGIS/utility-network-configurations/issues/1000

[MikeMillerGIS]

@jalsup and I discussed, only the assembly and line ends are attached to the pole, the contents of the assemble are not attached.

[jalsup]

@MichaelZeiler can you remove the lines between the controller and the Reclosers? We will delay addressing the controllers until a later time. As @MikeMillerGIS pointed out, if we keep adding complexity we will never finish.

[MichaelZeiler]

Revisiting this. I removed the associations between the controller and the reclosers.

[jalsup]

Should have a note that explains that "bending" the overhead lines was only done to simplify the visual presentation and is not required.

[MikeMillerGIS]

looks good, ship it :) I agree with Johns note. I wonder if we should add some general disclaimer text somewhere

• Location of features in the graphics do not represent them in GIS. Features have been moved to provide better visualization.

[MichaelZeiler]

#142

[MichaelZeiler]

Revised with comments from April 15 meeting. Changes are 1) removed attachments and changed structural attachments to line ends and 2) changed the right-angle leg to straight line (more accurate but uglier)