UCAIug Issue Tracking System: Issueshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/https://redmine.ucaiug.org/favicon.ico?15861924492023-12-05T18:37:57ZUCAIug Issue Tracking System
Redmine CIM Joint Issues - CIM Issues #6619 (New): Renaming the CIM UML Model Packageshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/66192023-12-05T18:37:57ZHenry Dotson
<p>There is a need to explicitly distinguish the CIM UML model from IEC TC57 CIM-based standards for the purpose of unambiguously identifying ownership of intellectual property.</p>
<p>The current CIM UML model top-level packages have names containing IEC terms related to IEC TC57 CIM-based standards. Specifically, the root-level model package name is "TC57CIM," and the three top-level sub-packages under the root-level model package are named "IEC61970," "IEC61968," and "IEC62325." These names introduce ambiguity regarding ownership of the CIM UML model.</p>
<p>The CIM UML model is open source and owned by UCA, the Electric Power Research Institute and various other organization and is reproduced permission of the UCA User Group, Inc (UCAIug). The CIM UML model open source file is managed by UCAIug under their Open Source sites. The IEC TC57 CIM-based standards are owned and copyrighted by the IEC. The IEC TC57 CIM-based standards are derived from the CIM UML model.</p>
<p>The aforementioned packages need to be renamed to remove the ambiguity regarding ownership of the CIM UML model.</p> CIM Joint Issues - CIM Issues #6584 (New): Handling unit multiplier needs joint WG concensus on a...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/65842023-11-08T12:55:38ZTodd Viegut
<p>Handling unit multiplier</p>
<p>WG13 needed a policy with respect to how unit multpliers are to be exchanged. For example CDPSM has need for Length to be in <strong>km</strong> for line length, but in <strong>meters</strong> for conductor spacing. IEC 61970-552 does not provide for the exchange of unit symbols or unit multpliers. Therefore, manual documentation is required in profiles. Possibly different model parts assembled together may have different unit multipliers such as combining a distribution and transmission model together. With current work in progress for the upcoming IEC 61970-301 Ed 8.0 (i.e. CIM18) and the accompanying editions of IEC 61970-452, IEC 61970-456, etc. there is the planned introduction of the new unbalanced profiles which will require concensus on an approach.</p>
<p>WG13 has issue: <a class="external" href="https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5014">https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5014</a> for addressing this cross-cutting concern within the context of WG13. This CIM Joint issue is to raise visibility across WG14, WG16, WG21 so that we have a common understanding/policy for how we will address this.</p> 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 #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> 61850-7-5 and 61850-7-500 - IEC61850-7-5 #6377 (New): Update the Switchgear / Breaker Modelhttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/63772023-06-14T13:17:15ZVladan Cvejic
<p>There exist the LNs XCBR/XSWI ("operative model") and the "supervision" LNs SCBR and SOPM. In addition, there are trip and control circuits. The number of instances needed depends on the switchgear technology (single phase switching/tripping and three phase control/tripping). The DOs in the LNs are not always in line with allocated tasks of the LNs. Therefore, a careful consistent and comprehensive remodeling is needed.</p> CIM Joint Issues - CIM Issues #6372 (New): Inconsistencies in Nameplate data for DERshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/63722023-06-12T13:18:19ZScott Coe
<p>Perhaps an issue for other equipment as well, but at least for DERs there is confusing modelling of DER nameplate data in the Dynamics sub-package of the Grid Package. DERNameplateData includes fields such as "acVmax" and "reactiveSusceptance" which seem to be not exclusive to dynamic response. Furthermore, this data appears to me to be more related to the asset world, and perhaps should be modelled as DER Datasheet info, rather than in Grid.</p>
<p>A related issue is that similar data appears in "DERNameplateDataApplied", also in dynamics. This represents the settings information which are bounded by the manufacturer limits, but can be configured (presumable at install but perhaps also via software controls) as protection settings are re-evaluated by the utility.</p> CIM Joint Issues - CIM Issues #6267 (New): Person and Organization Relationshipshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/62672023-02-15T15:31:47ZHenry Dotson
<p>The Person and Organisation relationship modeling is inadequate.</p> CIM Joint Issues - CIM Issues #5963 (Review): mRID topics [incl GMDM #19]https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/59632022-09-12T14:09:24ZYang Feng
<p>The usage of mRID has been brought up during the GMDM IOP and followings are the topics to be covered</p>
<p>• Should the UML be changed to make the mRID a UUID instead of a string?<br />• The omission of mRID in favor of rdf:ID/rdf:about has been inadequately canonized. How can we canonize this in a way that does not retroactively break anyone’s software? <br />• When the mRID is included, what should be done when the mRID value does not exactly match the fully-expanded rdf:ID/rdf:about?<br />• What should be done for mRIDs that are not UUIDs but that do not correctly override the xml:base?<br />• What should be done when a 61968-100 mRID does not conform to the xml:base nor exactly match the fully-expanded rdf:ID/rdf:about?</p> WG13 Issues - CIM Issues #5375 (In Progress): Clean up transformer documentation - Margaret remov...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/53752022-06-02T20:54:18ZYang Feng
<p>Margaret has decided to remove the some of the paragraphs describing distribution network models (e.g., distribution transformer, tap changer... more can be found in the attached document) from Part-11 documents.<br />These paragraphs should be reviewed and re-applied to where they fit, either in 301 or Part-13 document.</p>
<p>Pat Brown wrote<br />This Redmine issue is focused on cleaning up transformer documentation that currently exists in multiple locations: 61970-301 template, 61968-11 template, 61970-452 template, 61968-13 template and UML. <br />Other Redmine issues focus on transformer modelling improvements (esp. for transformers modelled with tanks):<br /> - Redmine 5302: association from TransformerTank to TransformerTankInfo<br /> - Redmine 6147 [GMDM #1]: streamlining of tank-based transformer modelling<br /> - Redmine 6148 [GMDM #2]: TapChanger and TapChangerInfo .ctRatio, .ptRatio attributes<br /> - Redmine 6341 [GMDM #4]: support for transformer type description / derivation</p> Client - Issues #636 (Resolved): Mandate RCB reservation for Ed2.0 client and Amd1 serverhttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/6362021-02-17T12:30:37ZRichard Schimmel
<p>Amd1 requires Clients to always reserve URCB/BRCB even when the RCB is pre-assigned and servers to refuse configuring/enabling RCBs without prior reservation. To guarantee forward compatibility from Ed2.0 to Amd1; Ed2.0 client shall reserve RCB. In the current test procedures the reservation is optional, because Ed2 servers allow implicit reservation</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>