Project

General

Profile

CIM Issues #5063

There are a variety of issues with RegulatingControl. Thes

Added by Herbert Falk over 1 year ago. Updated 4 months ago.

Status:
Review
Priority:
Normal
Author/Contact Info:
Todd Viegut
Base Release:
CIM17
Solution to be Applied To:
61970cim18
Solution Version:
Solution Applied By:
Completion Date:
CIM Keywords:
61970-Wires
Breaking Change:
No
Breaking Change Description:
CIM Impacted Groups:
WG13
Requestor:
Standard(s):

61970-301, 61970-452, 61970-456

Version:
Clause:
Sub-Clause:
Paragraph:
Table:
Originally Closed in Version:
Origination Date:
12/19/2020
Origination ID:
13_317
Originally Assigned To:

Description

There are a variety of issues with RegulatingControl. These include the following and must be addressed in CIM18:

There are multiple issues with the CIM control model:

1. Multiple RegulatingControls on the same controlled point as you describe. One reason to use multiple regulating controls is discrete vs continuous control that require different parameter settings. All RegulatingControls on the same power flow bus must then be enabled.

2. With multiple RegulatingControls they may have different target values (targetValue) which force the receiving tool to make a choice. If different tools make different choices then we have a problem. I have seen this in a few IGMs.

3. The control dead band (targetDeadband) is different for different type of devices which makes it difficult to use the same RegulatingControl, e.g. switched and tapped shunts.

4. A RegulatingControl is connected to the controlled power flow bus (TopologicalNode) via a Terminal. In a node breaker model it is common that the Terminal is at a Switch. It may then happen that the RegulatingControl becomes disconnected from the power flow bus as a consequence of switching while the controlling devices (subclasses of RequlatingCondEq) are still actively controlling. This has been observed to happen in several IGMs.

So the CIM voltage/reactive control model is broken and need a complete revision. For backwards compatibility we must keep the current in parallel with the revised.

Proposed Solution

A possible solution is to change the cardinality to RegulatingControl [0..*] - [0..*] Terminal which makes it possible to connect the RegulatingControl to all possible controlled points. However, there may be other side effects of this change so it must be carefully investigated before implemented.

Some initial formulated requirements (others are anticipated to be added):

1. The control model shall provide a single voltage target value for the controlled power flow bus and shall have a single enable/disable flag for the control at that bus.

2. Devices needing the same control dead bands shall be grouped and have a single and shared dead band value.

3. In node breaker models bus splits must be supported and the controlled point shall follow the possible reconfigurations that appears due to switching.

The RegulatingControl must be updated to meet these requirements.

Assign to Control Function Subgroup

#1

Updated by Eric Stephan over 1 year ago

  • Proposed Solution updated (diff)
  • Decision updated (diff)
#2

Updated by Eric Stephan over 1 year ago

  • Proposed Solution updated (diff)
  • Standard(s) set to 61970-301, 61970-452, 61970-456
  • Decision updated (diff)
  • CIM Keywords 61970-Wires added
#3

Updated by Chavdar Ivanov 4 months ago

  • Status changed from Open to Review

It looks like these points are covered by the porposal of control in ENTSO-E extensions. When this is reviewed the issue can be closed.

Also available in: Atom PDF