UCAIug Issue Tracking System: Issueshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/https://redmine.ucaiug.org/favicon.ico?15861924492023-06-21T09:46:02ZUCAIug Issue Tracking System
Redmine IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6448 (New): GOOSE treatment as a commandhttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64482023-06-21T09:46:02ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724220">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724220</a></p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6441 (New): Extensions to "Z" Logical Nodes (e.g. ...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64412023-06-21T09:39:17ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/719080">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/719080</a></p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6439 (New): Inter-substation GOOSE Naming conventio...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64392023-06-21T09:37:25ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724752">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724752</a></p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6437 (New): Logical Device Inheritance Rules for Lo...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64372023-06-21T09:35:43ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724756">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724756</a></p>
<p>Comment: captured in Redmine or TISSUE DB</p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6432 (New): SCL Engineering Lifecycle, Types and Se...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64322023-06-21T09:31:10ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724801">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724801</a></p>
<p>Comment: Joerg</p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6428 (New): Next Steps with IEC 61850-90-11 (Publis...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64282023-06-21T09:26:50ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/719278">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/719278</a></p>
<p>Comment: Check about starting the TF</p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6422 (New): Consistent Handling of Abbreviations fo...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64222023-06-21T09:18:46ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/720322">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/720322</a></p>
<p>Comment: Laurent will initiate</p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6420 (In Progress): Validation of SCL Files Using O...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64202023-06-21T09:12:42ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/723864">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/723864</a></p>
<p>Comment: New TF</p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6414 (In Progress): Golden Single Line Diagram For ...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64142023-06-21T08:42:41ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/722608">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/722608</a></p>
<p>Notes from Morning session (in addition to the summary on the collab tool):<br />"At least for the primary part"</p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6411 (New): Update the Model of Circuit Breaker/Dis...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64112023-06-21T08:33:57ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724224">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724224</a></p>
<p>Notes from Morning session (in addition to the summary on the collab tool):<br />"as well 7-500, 90-3, 62271-3; initially create TF to prepare a PWI maybe for a TR"</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Improvement #5323 (Resolved): Schedules - allow updates to s...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/53232022-03-02T12:37:42ZTom Berry
<p>Context: how to use IEC 61850 for DER and microgrids (IEC 61850-90-23 CD1).</p>
<p>IEC 61850-7-4 prescribes that schedules may only be updated whilst they are offline. This is a conservative approach that allows for validation of all the settings to ensure consistency before re-starting i.e. evaluating the schedule output. <br />There are two approaches:<br />1. Stop the running schedule; change it, restart<br />2. Write to another schedule with a higher priority and start that; stop the original schedule; change it, restart it; stop the second schedule.</p>
<p>This approach is unnecessarily complex for some cases. A common use case is to update a schedule for one or more periods in the future. In these cases, updating individual schedule values will not affect the current schedule output, so there is no need to require the schedule to be deactivated and reactivated.</p>
<p>See also <a class="issue tracker-4 status-2 priority-2 priority-default overdue" title="Improvement: Need to Change 8-1 to allow multiple DOs to be written (In Progress)" href="https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/3098">#3098</a></p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Improvement #5322 (Resolved): Schedules - add optional data ...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/53222022-03-02T12:32:43ZTom Berry
<p>Context: how to use IEC 61850 for DER and microgrids (IEC 61850-90-23 CD1).</p>
<p>Schedules may be used as means of providing setpoint values in advance of the desired time, for example for active power limiting. In such cases, regular time intervals are not always appropriate, especially under emergency conditions.</p>
<p>It is possible to model an irregular schedule with a set of FSCH logical nodes, each of which has an appropriate start time, but only one value.</p>
<p>It would be more efficient to allow a schedule to define a series of { time intervals, values }</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Improvement #5321 (Resolved): Schedules - allow 3 values per...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/53212022-03-02T12:31:29ZTom Berry
<p>Context: how to use IEC 61850 for DER and microgrids (IEC 61850-90-23 CD1).</p>
<p>Several use cases require schedules or forecasts that have several values for each time point. <br />Examples include:<br />- Forecast quantities with nominal, lower bound and upper bound values<br />- Preferred (ideal) setpoint, minimum and maximum limits<br />- Operational function set point values and activation modes</p>
<p>Today this is only possible by using several FSCH logical nodes. This has the risk that communication failures may leave the set of FSCH nodes with inconsistent information.</p>
<p>This would also help with mapping to CIM based systems.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Improvement #3098 (In Progress): Need to Change 8-1 to allow...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/30982021-08-08T19:12:00ZHerbert Falk
<p>WG17 has identified a use case that may require a SetDataValue request to write multiple FCD/FCDAs in a single request.</p>
<p>8-1 has a note that prohibits this.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Improvement #633 (Resolved): Initial values of paramRev and ...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/6332021-02-16T10:37:14ZCarlos Rodriguez del Castillo
Has the initial value of paramRev and valRev got to be taken from the process or from the configuration file? Or is it up to the vendor to decide which approach his device is going to follow?
<ul>
<li>On the one hand, these parameters are defined with fc=”ST”. Apparently the initial value of fc=”ST” elements has to be obtained from the process, i.e. not read from the configuration file (see table 4 in part 7.2) </li>
<li>On the other, the standard defines how these data have to be updated, both with changes made by the tools or changes made in the IED through communications or HMI (see table 86 in part 7.3), so apparently the initial value in the SCL file has to be taken into consideration</li>
<li>Finally the standard in part 6 also indicates that it is the responsibility of the system engineer to clarify whether “the concerned IED supports loading of these data via an SCD file”. (see bullet 10.2 in part 6) (I suppose SCD is a mistake and should be SCL, right? The tools read the SCD and the IED may read the resulting CID…but no the SCD…)</li>
</ul>
<p>Our understanding on how to deal with these attributes is that, if they are part of the data model (they may not be, as they are optional), both the tools and the device must initialize the value of these attributes with the value in the configuration file and not the value in the “process”.<br />Is our assumption correct?</p>
<p>We find very strange that these data are defined as fc=”ST”, but once defined as ST, we do not think it is clear enough in the standard that these attributes have to be treated in a special way, in the sense that they are initialized with the value in the configuration file and not with the value in the process as the rest of ST elements are. Am I missing or misinterpreting something or is our assumption correct?</p>