Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Replace local input files with datasets for MMSA Testbed Example 2 #239

Open
navarroc opened this issue May 17, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Replace local input files with datasets for MMSA Testbed Example 2 #239

navarroc opened this issue May 17, 2023 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
2storypoints Between 2-6 hours of work, requiring email and/or a brief meeting

Comments

@navarroc
Copy link
Member

MMSA Testbed example 2 (MMSA: Seismic Functionality and Restoration Analysis for Interdependent Buildings-Water-Power using Restoration Curves) uses local input files that are included in the zip - this should be replaced with IN-CORE datasets.

@navarroc navarroc added the 2storypoints Between 2-6 hours of work, requiring email and/or a brief meeting label May 17, 2023
@navarroc navarroc self-assigned this May 17, 2023
@navarroc
Copy link
Member Author

Sent the following email to John, Paolo and Milad:

We are trying to update the MMSA example notebooks that you contributed to IN-CORE and we need your help to confirm the best data to use for the water network for both notebooks.

In the MMSA notebook contributed by Paolo’s group, an IN-CORE water network dataset on the IN-CORE service is being used. In the notebook contributed by Milad, local shapefiles are being used for the water network that are based on the same files in the water network dataset used in the other notebook. When comparing the local shapefiles with the shapefiles on the IN-CORE service, there are two notable differences and we would like to use the best available data for both notebooks.

The two differences we found are:

  1. The pipeline shapefiles both have the same geometry, but the local shapefile has an updated "direction" attribute for some of the pipes.
  2. The water facility shapefiles also both have the same geometry, but the local shapefile has an updated facility type field. The dataset files on the service have some of the points marked as Junction and the local shapefile has them marked as PSTAS for the same GUID/location.

The potential solutions to this are:

  1. Merge the changes from the local datasets into the existing network dataset we have on the service so we have a single network dataset used by both notebooks
  2. Create a new water network dataset from the local files with a good description so it’s clear to why there are two water network datasets.

Would someone be able to help review these differences and determine what is the best approach?

@navarroc
Copy link
Member Author

Researchers responded that they will get together and determine the right dataset for the MMSA water network - this will likely be next week sometime.

@navarroc
Copy link
Member Author

Both notebooks use the same power network so Milad's MMSA can remove the local EPN files. Also the interdependency csv can be converted to JSON and uploaded to IN-CORE.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
2storypoints Between 2-6 hours of work, requiring email and/or a brief meeting
Projects
None yet
Development

When branches are created from issues, their pull requests are automatically linked.

1 participant