UCAIug Issue Tracking System: Issueshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/https://redmine.ucaiug.org/favicon.ico?15861924492024-03-18T09:57:10ZUCAIug Issue Tracking System
Redmine 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Feature #5123 (Resolved): ACSI service for link supervision ...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/51232021-11-22T15:26:32ZAndreas Ostermeier
<p>Link supervision is currently not defined as an ACSI service, but mentioned in the mapping documents</p>
<p>8-1 defines TCP-Keepalive shall be used for link supervision<br />8-2 defines XMPP Ping for link supervision<br />9-2 defines Goose TTL for link supervision</p>
<p>TCP-Keepalive as defined in 8-2 alone might not be sufficient in some scenarios. <br />It will just proof that the Ethernet Stack of the IED is still alive, but doesn't give any clue on the status of the higher protocol levels or the application itself.<br />Therefore</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #5080 (Resolved): Clarification on the ctlModel 3/3https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/50802021-09-20T13:33:38ZCarlos Rodriguez del Castillo
<p>Add a statement about the use of the 'ctlModel' that it is applicable for XCBR.Pos when subscribing to CSWI.Sel* and CSWI.Op*, but is bypassed when subscribing to PTRC.Tr . Note that both the Operate and the trip are of CDC ACT.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #5079 (Resolved): Clarification on the ctlModel 2/3https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/50792021-09-20T13:29:32ZCarlos Rodriguez del Castillo
<p>Add a statement about the relation between the 'ctlModel' of the controller LN and the 'ctlModel' of the proxy LN, e.g. CSWI.Pos--XCBR.Pos or ATCC.TapPos--YLTC.TapPos .The ctlModels can be different/must be the same?</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #5078 (Resolved): Clarification on the ctlModel 1/3https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/50782021-09-20T13:27:43ZCarlos Rodriguez del Castillo
<p>What is the purpose of 'ctlModel' at X group level, Y group level respectively? Operator switchgear controls are managed by CSWI LN, so a Select to allow the operator to think twice before Operate is not needed on X group level.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #3101 (Resolved): IEC61850.Tissue #1755 Event driven sch...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/31012021-08-10T09:59:06ZHenry Dawidczak
<p>Part 7-4, page 169/482, clause 6.6.9 table 70:<br />The possibility to stop an event driven schedule by another event is missing.<br />Defining an additional DO would allow that starting and stopping a event driven schedule could be represented by two independent trigger events.</p>
<p>Example: A local DO event may represent a communication failure. The transition (False to True) of the DO referenced by InSyn could indicate that the communication has a failure (which should start a specific schedule). The transition (False to True) of the DO referenced by (new) DO InSynStop could indicate that the communication is again operating properly (which should cause the schedule to stop immediately).</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #627 (Resolved): Activation and deactivation of a fu...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/6272021-02-16T08:07:51ZCarlos Rodriguez del Castillo
<p>The DO "mod" allows to activate or deactivate a function with online control.<br />Currently, to deactivate a function by configuration, it is necessary to instantiate the DO mod with valKind = RO or valKind = SET. It should be more appropriate to have a specific DO to do this.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #611 (In Progress): Need a new DO (ENUM) to identify the...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/6112021-02-15T19:01:57ZCarlos Rodriguez del Castillo
<p>This ENUM will allow to identify the type of the distant center (104, IEC61850), in case several centers are connected to the substation.<br />Helpful for maintenance and exploitation of the system.</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>