UCAIug Issue Tracking System: Issueshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/https://redmine.ucaiug.org/favicon.ico?15861924492024-03-18T10:37:35ZUCAIug Issue Tracking System
Redmine IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #6739 (New): How to deal with 'Beh' and 'Health' of ...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/67392024-03-18T10:37:35ZMichael Haecker
<p>For site testing, users shall use the test mode to isolate devices/functions to prevent from flooding control centres with test data.</p>
<p>Whereas data marked "test" can be filtered out, changes of 'Beh' cannot be filtered out. When, for example, changing the active parameter set, the user will create data towards the control centre for LN instances which are activated/inactivated through this change.<br />[Part 7-4 Annex A: "Regardless of the status of LN.Beh, the quality test attribute of Mod, Beh and Health shall be q.test=false."]</p>
<p>In an automation system where a gateway is used to interface the control centre, this gateway could implement a feature to block the information flow of a device in test. Where a direct link via IEC 61850 is used, such blocking is not possible.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Improvement #6738 (New): Amending TGSN LN class with setting...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/67382024-03-18T10:14:44ZMichael Haecker
<p>The LN classes TCTR and TVTR inherit from 'InstrumentTransformerLN' some settings which can be used for adapting the output signal.</p>
<p>TGSN LN class is missing the settings for scaling, linerarization, wideing of a focussed range.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #6737 (New): Amending TGSN LN class with signal characte...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/67372024-03-18T09:57:10ZMichael Haecker
<p>The model of a generic sensor does not provide characteristics about the analogue signal type which is used to receive the sensor value.</p>
<p>TC57/WG18 are proposing to amend the model with a setting to state the analogue signal type.</p> IEC 61850 TPWG - Bug #6622 (Rejected): Test case Ttf1 (mustUnderstand) for the ICT conformance te...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/66222023-12-06T16:41:38ZKaren Wyszczelski
<p>The test should be modified to test three scenarios.</p>
<p>An element has a mustUnderstand in the communication section of the IED being configured, but the IED being configured does not support it.<br /> The ICT should reject the configuration of the IED and provide an error message.</p>
<p>An element has a mustUnderstand outside the scope of the IED being configured.<br /> The ICT should import the file.</p>
<p>An element has a mustUnderstand element that is in another device but the SCD is configured for use in the IED being configured.<br /> The ICT should reject the configuration of the IED and provide an error message.</p>
<p>Currently mustUnderstand is only used for R-GOOSE and R-SV.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #6605 (Resolved): Identification of three phase trip...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/66052023-11-21T08:10:59ZMaud Merley
<p>In IEC 61850-7-3 ed2.1 Table 21, the use of DA « general” of cdc ACT is specified. It can be used as general (three phase) trip, but table 21 requires also “general” to be set if the protection function only emits a trip command for one phase. This requirement poses a problem for the following use cases:<br />1. For circuit breaker featuring single phase trip capacity, there is one trip contact for each phase and a three-phase trip contact. The association of the three-phase trip contact is logical and can be considered as redundancy. This association is impossible if general is to be set for single-phase command.<br />2. The recloser automaton requires information whether a trip was single phase (and on which phase) or three phase. For single phase trips, DA phs* can be used. It would be logical to use DA “general” for three phase trip indication. This is impossible if general is to be set for single-phase command, as each single-phase trip would wrongly initiate a three phase cycle.<br />Conclusion: a DA indicating three phase trip, independent from single-phase-trip is necessary.<br />Proposal: accept “general” to indicate three phase trip independent from single phase trip. For this, delete the last part of the value description for “general”: “'general' shall be set if one of the 'phsX'/'neut' is set”. This would allow the application to decide (as it should be), enabling the aforementioned use cases.<br />Alternatively, <br />- a specific DA for three phase trip (phsABC ?) could be introduced, but this would have a very huge impact and should probably be avoided.<br />- the combined use of phsA, phsB and phsC to indicate a three phase trip would require an additional logic gate for the circuit breaker interface connected to circuit breakers without three phase capability and having only one trip contact. This would delay the overall trip time and is not desirable.<br />- Different implementation in protection functions depending on whether they are associated to cb with single and three phase capability or three phase capability only. This would cause many implementation issues for the protection functions and seems not acceptable.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #6596 (Resolved): Simulation Mode with Centralized Prote...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/65962023-11-12T10:40:07ZDustin Tessier dtessier@tescoautomation.com
<p>During a recent vPAC Alliance meeting the topic of LPHD.Sim was discussed and how it would not support a centralized protection scheme, which forces the entire physical device (centralized computing platform) to be placed into simulation mode. Ideally the simulation modes could be applied to LDs (similar to test mode via LLN0), however this would create backwards compatibility issues. The other option is to not use simulation mode, and use the LN's InRef's tstEna/setTstRef data objects to dynamically subscribe to the test set.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #6303 (Resolved): LN PDIF – setting for nominal currenthttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/63032023-03-28T09:32:31ZMaud Merley
<p>LN PDIF contains DO LoSet and HiSet which represent Low (resp High) operate value setting [%] relative to the nominal current. <br />As the nominal current is not a setting in PDIF, how could a user set the value of the threshold for minimal (resp. maximal) differential current ?</p>
<p>In practice, the base current for PDIF is often the highest primary nominal current of the associated TC.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #6263 (Resolved): GOOSE MinTime / Max Time - Probable di...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/62632023-02-14T11:24:58ZAbhilash Appukuttanabhilash.appukuttan1@ge.com
<p>In Part 6, the MinTime and MaxTime is expressed as 'Decimal'</p>
<p><xs:complexType name="tGSE"><br /><xs:complexContent><br /><xs:extension base="tControlBlock"><br /><xs:sequence><br /><xs:element name="MinTime" type="tDurationInMilliSec" minOccurs="0"/><br /><xs:element name="MaxTime" type="tDurationInMilliSec" minOccurs="0"/><br /></xs:sequence><br /></xs:extension><br /></xs:complexContent><br /></xs:complexType><br />---<br /><xs:complexType name="tDurationInMilliSec"><br /><xs:simpleContent><br /><xs:extension base="xs:decimal"><br /><xs:attribute name="unit" type="tSIUnitEnum" use="optional" fixed="s"/><br /><xs:attribute name="multiplier" type="tUnitMultiplierEnum" use="optional" fixed="m"/><br /></xs:extension><br /></xs:simpleContent><br /></xs:complexType></p>
<p>However, in 8-1, the MinTime and MaxTime is an Unsigned32 / INT32U</p>
<p>MinTime Unsigned32 r o INT32U – As specified in the SCD<br />file for the GoCB, See 1<br />MaxTime Unsigned32 r o INT32U – As specified in the SCD<br />file for the GoCB. See 1</p>
<p>What shall the ICT process the values as? Input as Decimal and then pass it as Integer to the application?</p>
<p>Or does it makes sense to change the -6 to have these values as Integer?</p>
<p>If you look at Table 45 in -6, it does point to that way.</p>
<p>INT8, INT16, INT24, INT32,<br />INT64<br />INT8U, INT16U, INT32U</p>
<p>integer</p>
<p>An integer number, no decimal fraction (99999)</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #6256 (Resolved): IEC 61850-7-4 list of abbreviationshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/62562023-02-09T19:27:57ZMichael Haecker
<p>Clause 4.2 / Table 1 of Part 7-4 lists the abbreviations used in data object names.</p>
<p>In this list entries exist which refer to (parts of) former DO names. When removing DO / changing DO names of former versions, model managers of other Parts do not inform the Part 7-4 editor to delete the entries from the list.</p>
<p>The standard (and the web access datamodel) expose abbreviations which are not used any more.</p>
<p>Example: string "Ia" : 16 entries</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #6246 (Resolved): ExtRef cannot specify a Poll inten...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/62462023-02-02T13:01:21ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Via the ExtRef element an SCT can specify expected inputs to an IED and may state a serviceType indicating a service used to receive the data. In most cases, i.e. GOOSE, Report and SV, the serviceType refers to a specific service defined in 7-2.</p>
<p>But -6 is less precise about serviceType=Poll, "… the client shall / will poll the input data by means of read requests."</p>
<p>Which form the Poll read request takes i.e., GetDataValues or GetDataSetValues cannot be specified using the schema and is left to the respective ICTs to sort out.</p>
<p>But a customer may prefer to use GetDataSetValues to minimize network bandwidth utilization or to minimize burden on the IED since the comparable GetDataValues requests are quite large. While a customer may specify an ExtRef and add a DataSet to the IED for this purpose, the DataSet would appear to be unused and could be removed accidentally.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #6226 (Resolved): In the downgrading rules from ed 2.1 t...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/62262023-01-17T09:05:39ZAurelie Dehouck
<p>61850-6 ed2.1 mention in I.4.2.4 "New CDC":</p>
<p>"The CDC ORS has been added to the list of the allowed CDCs. DOType whose CDC=ORS shall be excluded from the export to an 2007B environment. This includes also DO instances using this type."</p>
<p>But other CDCs were also added (cf tPredefinedCDCEnum, or 7-3): CST, VSD and TCS<br />Why shouldn't they be excluded also ?</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #6175 (In Progress): SCL SICS requires SNTP even with 2....https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/61752022-11-06T14:40:52ZHerbert Falk
<p>See attached problem report.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Support #6167 (Resolved): IEC 61850-90-6 Voltage presence CD...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/61672022-10-19T13:44:58ZTom Berry
<p>From: Michael Ritchie<br />A question about the modeling of SVPI.Prs. It’s shown in the web access data model as CDC ACD, with the description “Directionality is not used here.”. I would have expected CDC ACT if this will never be directional.</p>
<p>The web access data model does match 61850-90-6 Ed1 Table 42:<br />However in the same document Table 13 refers to SVPI.Prs as CDC ACT, which is inconsistent but what I would have expected.</p>
<p>Which reference is correct? If it is supposed to be ACD, why?</p>
<p>Is it because Prs DO is used in a different LN where it is required to be directional / ACD? This seems like another reason against the rule that “DOs with the same name will always have the same CDC”.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #5374 (In Progress): Creation of a new LN for protec...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/53742022-06-02T08:58:16ZChristophe Ghafari
<p>To detect faults occurring between the busbar and the HV side of a transformer/autotransformer, a specific function based on impedance measurement is installed of the LV side of the transformer/autotransformer. This function shares similarities with the distance protection (PDIS) : it computes the 6 impedance loops based on voltage and current measurements to detect if a fault has occurred. However, to detect phase-to-ground faults, the traditional approach of using the k0 factor to compute the phase-to-ground impedance loops cannot be used as it is the case for distance protection, especially if the transformer coupling is delta-delta (residual current cannot flow). The phase-to-ground impedance loops are thus computed by simply dividing the voltage by the current without taking into consideration neither the k0 factor nor the residual current.</p>
<p>Proposal : a new LN (PIMP = Impedance protection ?), with associated DO and DA should be created to deal with this use case.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #5331 (Resolved): Multiple LNodes implemented by sam...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/53312022-03-26T12:18:31ZCamille Blochcamille.bloch@se.com
<p>From IOP discussions:<br />"When a specification defines multiple LNodes in the specification which are implemented by the same LN in a device, there is no standard way to represent this mapping. Part 6 is currently not clearly stating if multiple LNodes can be mapped to same LN or not</p>
<p>A good example for this need is the PTRC which could be define during specification into each protection function, and finally only one instance is defined in the protection device.</p>
<p>This could have an impact on functional naming if one LN implements multiple LNode"</p>
<p>But this is currently forbidden in part 6:<br />§9.2.6: "Therefore, the combination of iedName, ldInst, prefix, lnClass and lnInst shall be unique within all substation sections if iedName is not None."</p>