Feature #5082: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 2/8 - IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - UCAIug Issue Tracking System

Feature #5082

Clarifications on the local/remote concept 2/8

Added by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo about 3 years ago. Updated over 1 year ago.

Status:

Resolved

Priority:

Normal

Assignee:

Tom Berry

Category:

Standard clarification required

Start date:

09/20/2021

Due date:

01/20/2022 (over 2 years late)

% Done:

Estimated time:

ID:

Source:

TF Unique ID:

6 # MH

WG10 Proposal:

Estimated Completion:

Discuss in Upcoming Meeting:

To discuss in WG10:

Short Proposal:

Should we state that "automatic-bay/station/remote" orCat would not be blocked by L/R concept?

Standard(s):

IEC 61850-7-4,7-5

Needs More Information:

Assigned TF:

Description

Add a statement about the intention of the L/R concept. Specify whether the L/R concept is applicable for operator controls exclusively, not for switchgear controls in general.
Assume LD/LLN0.Loc="false". Will a switchgear control by GAPC (orCat="automatic-bay") be executed?

Proposal descriptions

We think the solution should be in IEC 61850-7-4 Annex B table with a clarification with some use cases.
Use cases could be created in 7-500.

Related issues

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo almost 3 years ago

Status changed from New to In Progress
Proposal descriptions updated (diff)
Short Proposal set to Should we state that "automatic-bay/station/remote" orCat would not be blocked by L/R concept?
Standard(s) changed from IEC 61850-7-1 Ed2.1 to IEC 61850-7-4

Situation:
- We have an IED running some automation process with a GAPC instance
- The GAPC could control a breaker or switch
- If the IED is in remote, does GAPC automatic control (orCat=automatic-bay) be executed?
According to IEC 61850-7-4 Annex B, in order to make it executable, MltLev should be implemented and set to True.
But, also, should an IED in remote state block automatic controls? Today it is an implementation issue in IEDs.
Should we state that "automatic-bay" orCat would not be blocked by L/R concept? There are three orCat values (automatic-bay, automatic-station, automatic-remote). orCat is also used to provide the reason in the return information.

Updated by Vladan Cvejic almost 3 years ago

Related to Feature #5081: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 1/8 added

Updated by Vladan Cvejic almost 3 years ago

Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
Discuss in Upcoming Meeting changed from Yes to No

Updated by Tom Berry almost 3 years ago

Proposed clarification
Normally automation commands should be processed in exactly the same way as operator commands, which includes the local/remote status, interlocks or command blocking.
Some customers may want a different behaviour. This should be defined in the PIXIT or with extension configuration settings.

Proposal: extension optional configuration setting for LLN0 and/or CSWI

LocBlkAut SPG enable local mode to block automation controls
If the value is true then for controls with orCat values "automatic-bay/automatic-station/automatic-remote" are blocked if Loc status is true.
If the value is false then for controls with orCat values "automatic-bay/automatic-station/automatic-remote", the Loc status is ignored.
If the setting is not instantiated then for controls with orCat values "automatic-bay/automatic-station/automatic-remote", then the Loc status is applied in the same way as controls from an operator.

Alternative
LockBlkAutLev ENG defines which level of automation commands are blocked if this logical node or device is in local mode
Enumerated setting: 0=all-automatic-commands-allowed, 4=local-blocks-automatic-bay, 5=local-blocks-automatic-station, 6=local-blocks-automatic-remote