Post

4 followers Follow
0
Avatar

Meter Testing and Calibration

We are looking at using the meter calibration module for our meter testing program. One of the issues is testing compound meters where there are two registers that must be read in order to calculate the metered volume but there is only one field for meter read before and one for meter read after. I am curious if anyone else has had this issue and what they are doing to make it work. Thanks!

Charlie Roberts Answered

Please sign in to leave a comment.

2 comments

0
Avatar

Charlie,

Compound meters are a pretty common concern for water agencies using Lucity, and I’ve seen two methods for dealing with them in maintenance management. Some clients have created distinct asset records for each of the two registers – one ‘high’ one ‘low’, so the maintenance record of each is truly distinct. In this case the register IS the ‘meter device’ asset. Another client struggling with this issue tracked them as a single asset with the understanding that reactive maintenance WOs on compound meters needed to indicate which register had the issue, where that was relevant (this was just a comment). That's good enough for recording maintenance.

I’ve never dealt with these in the context of the meter calibration module, but since you really need the registers to be distinct in there I’d recommend using that first strategy & creating a second asset record for each compound meter. Perhaps if your meter ID is M123, you could create a second asset M123h for the high-read register.

The only alternative I can think of – a weak one given how that module operates – is to utilize a field in the calibration module to indicate which register it is. You could then create two calibration records for the same asset – one for each register. The big problem here is that for these records to be unique they cannot share the same asset and date… so you’d be stuck logging the second test as though it’s on a different day, which is far from ideal.

If you like the second option, an enhancement request to make the Time field relevant in testing the calibration record's uniqueness (ie. using Asset, Date, AND Time) would resolve that problem fairly easily. Let us know what you think.

Steve Schultz 0 votes
Comment actions Permalink