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 #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> 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> WG14 Part 4 Issues - CIM Issues #5215 (Review): Add ProcedureStephttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/52152022-01-12T20:44:15ZHerbert Falk
<p>Add a procedure step class with association to Procedure with attributes sequenceNumber, isFreeSequence, description and purpose. This will be similar to the SwitchingStepGroup which is associated with a WorkTask providing a finer level of granularity of how a procedure is to be performed.</p> WG13 Issues - CIM Issues #5076 (In Progress): Convention and usage of operational limits of Gener...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/50762021-09-17T09:49:40ZChavdar Ivanovchavdar.ivanov@griddigit.eu
<p>There is ambiguity in the usage and definition of the following attributes<br />GeneratingUnit.maxOperatingP<br />GeneratingUnit.minOperatingP<br />EquivalentInjection.minP<br />EquivalentInjection.maxP<br />ExternalNetworkInjection.minP<br />ExternalNetworkInjection.maxP<br />EquivalentInjection.minQ<br />EquivalentInjection.maxQ<br />ExternalNetworkInjection.minQ<br />ExternalNetworkInjection.maxQ</p>
<p>GeneratingUnit and the injections can operate both in generator and in motor mode. It is not clear what is the sign convention for the limits. Is it positive when generating and negative when consuming? If yes a GeneratingUnit of type motor needs to have its minOperatingP and maxOperatingP negative. However do we require that abs(minOperatingP) is < abs(maxOperatingP)? If not doing this one can do maxOperatingP=-5 > minOperatingP=-100 which will need to be most probably imported in an application as Pmax=100 and Pmin=5, meaning we do not have 1:1 mapping in the sense of meaning maxOperatingP and minOperatingP.</p>
<p>Whatever the solution is this needs to be compatible with the understanding of ReactiveCapabilityCurve and xvalue there in case of motor operation</p>
<p>Similar clarification is necessary for EquivalentInjection and ExternalNetworkInjection where we do not have the operating mode in EQ, but we do have limits there.</p> WG13 Issues - CIM Issues #5005 (In Progress): GroundDisconnector examplesThe intended use of Grou...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/50052021-09-14T20:47:56ZHerbert Falk
<p>GroundDisconnector examples<br />The intended use of GroundDisconnector is unclear. Describe the containment in figure 19 in the 301 and change "GroundSwitch" to "GroundDisconnecter" as "GroundSwitch" do not exist in the UML.</p> WG13 Issues - CIM Issues #4943 (In Progress): ControlAreaGenratingUnit2: IOP suggest to clarify t...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/49432021-09-14T20:47:40ZHerbert Falk
<p>ControlAreaGenratingUnit<br />2: IOP suggest to clarify the usage of ControlAreaGenratingUnit: Perhaps WG16 opinion is needed as well. If the issue cannot be resolved fast we need to have a note to cover short term usage.<br />3: we need some associations to be able to have EnergySource, EquivalentInjection and ExternalNetworkInjection in a controlArea</p> WG13 Issues - CIM Issues #4922 (In Progress): Temperature dependent and most restrictive operatio...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/49222021-09-14T20:47:35ZHerbert Falk
<p>Temperature dependent and most restrictive operational limits<br />The OperationaLimit on a line should be function or table lookup based on temerature. Also devices should be grouiped together such that the most restrictive device in series will be used for the effective limit. A definition of such grouping is needed.</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 - Support #632 (Resolved): APPID 0x4000 - Sampled Valueshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/6322021-02-16T08:33:46ZCarlos Rodriguez del Castillo
<p>IEC 61850-9-2 LE defines 0x4000 as the APPID to be used for SV sources.<br />IEC 61850-9-2 Ed2 and IEC 61869-9 indicates APPID 0x4000 means "lack of configuration" and encourage to assign unique APPID for each SV source in the system. Does "lack of configuration" mean than APPID 0x4000 is not valid any more? That could provoke an interOp problem with 9-2LE sources.<br />Opposite semantical definitions.</p>
<p>Tissue #1743 partially capture the issue as we think it does not state if tools and implementations will accept SV sources with APPID 0x4000.</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>