UCAIug Issue Tracking System: Issueshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/https://redmine.ucaiug.org/favicon.ico?15861924492021-02-03T20:07:39ZUCAIug Issue Tracking System
Redmine IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #572 (Resolved): S/S related applications: Auxiliary...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5722021-02-03T20:07:39ZHerbert Falk
<p>S/S related applications: Auxiliary circuit supervision</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #547 (Resolved): Requirement for Boundary Clocks to ...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5472021-02-03T20:07:38ZHerbert Falk
<p>The BCs should adjust the clock accuracy to reflect their actual accuracy, not that of their grandmaster.<br />The indicator “stepsRemoved” is not sufficient.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #548 (Resolved): The start-up behaviour of Boundary ...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5482021-02-03T20:07:38ZHerbert Falk
<p>The start-up behaviour of BCs is unsatisfactory.<br />A BC in holdover (i.e. grandmaster with no time reference), should not return to BC mode when the time reference is restored before its clock oscillator stabilizes to the new grandmaster. The tested BC when connected to the time reference (GPS) immediately forward the GrandMaster time advertising the accuracy of the grandmaster. <br />Otherwise, all slave clocks below the BC will be subject to the additional jitter of the BC’s clock resynchronizing to the GM.<br />This can be tested by disconnecting the BC for some minutes and then reconnect it to the grandmaster.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #549 (Resolved): Standard should clarify the relatio...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5492021-02-03T20:07:38ZHerbert Falk
<p>IEC/IEEE 61850-7-2 should clarify the relation between the PTP clock clockQuality signals and the timeQuality in TimeStamp.</p>
<p>E.g. “Clock Not Synchronized” refers to the slave clock, not to the grandmaster. The fact that the PTP grandmaster loses its GPS reference signal is not an indication that the IED clock is not synchronized, since the grandmaster could have an excellent stability. The total loss of PTP Sync messages during xx seconds should raise the “Clock Not synchronized” flag, depending on the slave clock’s quality. <br />This is best placed in IEC/IEEE 61850-9-3, but 7-2 should make a reference to it.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #550 (Resolved): Incorrect variance adjustment for T...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5502021-02-03T20:07:38ZHerbert Falk
<p>All masters adjust correctly (and conservatively) the ClockAccuracy field when degrading (loss of GPS) but they do not adjust the variance (offsetScaledLogVariance) correctly. This is a measured value that is used in the Best Master selection. Most clocks set the variance to 0 or 65535, or to a fixed (not computed) value. <br />Therefore, this field is unusable in the BMCA, a clock with a very poor variance could win over another clock that claims 0 variance. <br />IEC/IEEE 61850-9-3 should indicate specifically that the variance has to be adjusted.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #551 (Resolved): IEC/IEEE 61850-9-3 - Sync messages ...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5512021-02-03T20:07:38ZHerbert Falk
<p>To avoid errors of up to 800ns in media converters (e.g. 1 Gbit/s – 100 Mbit/s, SFPs), IEC/IEEE 61850-9-3 should specify that the Sync messages have to be padded to the same length as the Pdelay_Req and Pdelay_Resp messages. Media converters should be tested for asymmetry.<br />This will be stated in the revision of IEEE 1588, but IEC/IEEE 61850-9-3 refers to IEEE 1588:2008.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #552 (Resolved): Disruption of network when TC are n...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5522021-02-03T20:07:38ZHerbert Falk
<p>Some TC that are not set to the correct domain disrupt the network because they do not respond to <br />Pdelay_Req coming from another domain than their own. <br />This means that a replacement TC inserted out of the box could disrupt the network until it is properly configured.<br />According to IEEE 1588:2008, a TC only has a “primary domain” for syntonization, but otherwise should respond to other domain TCs should respond to other domains.<br />A slave-only clock is not obliged to respond to a Pdelay_Req that is not from its domain.<br />To be clarified in IEC/IEEE 61850-9-3.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #553 (Resolved): IEC/IEEE 61850-9-3 should clarify t...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5532021-02-03T20:07:38ZHerbert Falk
<p>IEC/IEEE 61850-9-3 should clarify the meaning and use of TimeTraceable and FrequencyTraceable.<br />In particular, it should clarify that the clockAccuracy is only valid if TimeTraceable is true, and that <br />a temporary loss of signal to the reference clock does not clear the TimeTraceable flag, as long as the master retains the ability to announce a leap second correctly.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #554 (Resolved): Performance requirement for SV and ...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5542021-02-03T20:07:38ZHerbert Falk
<p>• Loss of GOOSE is equivalent to traditional<br />• SV reliability implications? <br />Loose of SV is equivalent to losing the CT/PT signal<br />Protection applications typically need reliability (less than 1 electrical cycle). Currently SV profiles block protection element.</p>
<p>Performance requirement for SV (to be defined). To be completed by H30</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #555 (Rejected): Link Failover reliability problem -...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5552021-02-03T20:07:38ZHerbert Falk
<p>• Failover at link layer – from 2ms to 2 sec.<br />Link Failover reliability problem – <br />Solution 1: need for end-end to connection oriented monitoring<br />Feedback: Can relays monitor end-end link integrity? What existing IEEE 802.x standards? What new network standards – PSCC, …? Can failover be less then 1ms?<br />Solution 2: End-end communication path monitoring + centralized network monitoring including relay communication.<br />FAST switchover to backup protection (within 1 ms).</p>
<p>To define reassessment for other relative parties. To be completed by H30</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #556 (In Progress): Rendundant CT/TT measurementshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5562021-02-03T20:07:38ZHerbert Falk
<p>Rendundant CT/TT measurements</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #519 (Resolved): Optionality in DOI NamPlt, PhyNam r...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5192021-02-03T20:07:36ZHerbert Falk
<p>Optionality in DOI NamPlt, PhyNam resp. in ICD/IID file: IED.manufacturer, .IED.type, makes a device recognition in a machine to machine environment almost impossible.<br />Product standard could be more strict also for SCL files. Engineering guideline could also address the issue (system management TF?).</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #525 (Resolved): IEC 61850-6 does not allow the auth...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5252021-02-03T20:07:36ZHerbert Falk
<p>IEC 61850-6 does not allow the authentication configuration (none, password, weak, strong or certificate) to be used for Client applications that do not include a server.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #438 (Resolved): The engineering-process is well def...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/4382021-02-03T20:07:32ZHerbert Falk
<p>The engineering-processen is well defined for a green field / new IEC 61850 substation but needs clarification for refurbishment and extensions. In a green field project Vattefall starts by defining the SSD and hands it over to supplier as part of the bid for tender. Clarification of the process for an existing substation is required. Here utility needs to start by extending or modifying an existing SCD substation from original supplier. How are the modified parts of substation section handled? Can a SSD be created that maintains links to existing communication and IED structures, into which a new supplier can continue work? (61850-6:2009 clause 10 needs to define also "specification tool" besides system configurator. Can data flow engineering rights and SED files that be used for this use case?)</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #439 (Resolved): How to add utility process name to DOshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/4392021-02-03T20:07:32ZHerbert Falk
<p>Currently SCL has poor support for handling gateway/RTU-funktions where signal names are translated for remote communication. The specified sigal has a utility process name independent of used protcol. E.g. "start of distance protection". This needs to be associated with its IEC 61850 implementation (xxPDIS1.Str.general, xxPDIS2.Str.general etc.). The 80-1 part describes how 104 addresses can be added to SCL but also other utility fields are important to be able to include in SCL for specification and documentation purposes. Desired solution by Vattenfall is to have vendors use DA description to add utility process name.</p>