System boundaries and interfaces
What each subsystem contains, what defines its boundary, and where the drawings and the commissioning breakdown disagree.
Demonstration project - no figure here describes a real facilityChanges are not saved
Why
Membership is read from the project's own placements. No boundary here was inferred from a drawing.
Writes are validated against the engineering rules and then refused, because no database has been configured for this environment.
Systems
2
Subsystems
3
Test packs
2
Boundaries in dispute
1
A drawn boundary is never an approved boundary
A dashed box on a P&ID is a drafter’s annotation. Promoting one to a commissioning boundary is how a test pack comes to contain the wrong valves, which is discovered at hydrotest with the scaffolding already up. EDS records what the drawing shows and never acts on it.
Where the drawing and the breakdown disagree
Reported, not resolved.
| Subject | What disagrees | Between | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HV-3101 system placement | The commissioning breakdown puts HV-3101 in SYS-31-01 and the drawn boundary on ZRF-PID-3101 puts it outside. | ZRF-PID-3101 vs ZRF-REG-VR-001 | Nothing chosen |
Subsystems and what they contain
| System | Subsystem | Name | Items | Units it reaches into | Defining document |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SYS-12 | SYS-12-01 | Export pumps and discharge | 19 | U-12 | Not recorded |
| SYS-12 | SYS-12-02 | Export metering | 8 | U-12 | Not recorded |
| SYS-31 | SYS-31-01 | Cooling water circulation | 9 | U-31, U-12 | Not recorded |
Confirm a boundary
Test packs
- ZRF-TP-0018 items
- ZRF-TP-0026 items
A pack that spans two units is ordinary. Why
Why the defining document matters
Every boundary here shows its defining document as not recorded, because none has been. That is the honest state: the subsystems came from a commissioning breakdown and nobody has pointed at the document that settles each one.