Menu

Plant hierarchy

Four structures over the same assets. They deliberately do not line up, and the page keeps them apart.

Demonstration project - no figure here describes a real facilityChanges are not saved
Why

Each tree is built from the project's own hierarchy nodes, and the item counts are the assets actually placed in each node.

Writes are validated against the engineering rules and then refused, because no database has been configured for this environment.

Physical plant

11

nodes

Commissioning systems

5

nodes

Test packs

2

nodes

Handover packages

2

nodes

Physical plant

Site, plant, area and unit: where things physically are.

  • ZRFReference LNG Terminalsiteno items
    • ZRF-P1LNG Train 1 and utilitiesplantno items
      • A-10Inlet and receptionareano items
        • U-11Inlet separationunit7 items
        • U-12Condensate exportunit28 items
      • A-20Liquefactionareano items
        • U-21Main cryogenic exchangeunitno items
      • A-30Utilitiesareano items
        • U-31Cooling waterunit8 items
        • U-32Instrument air and nitrogenunit5 items
        • U-33Electrical distributionunit2 items

Items in U-33

Every asset placed in this node, whichever hierarchy placed it.

Assets in U-33
TagDescriptionClass
MCC-6001Utilities motor control centreequipmentUnverified
TX-6010Utilities distribution transformerequipmentUnverified

U-33 in the other structures

The same items, placed by each hierarchy in turn. Where a node's items land in more than one place, the structures disagree about this node.

Commissioning systems

  • not placed2 items

Test packs

  • not placed2 items

Four structures, never merged

Test packs that span units

Ordinary, and the reason a single tree cannot express this project.

  • ZRF-TP-002U-31, U-12

Where a boundary comes from

A drawn boundary is never an approved one. Why