CIM Issues #6328
Required usage of BusbarSection
IEC 61970-301, IEC 61970-452, IEC 61070-600
Multiple requests received on lack of instructions if BusbarSection is a required class if a ConnectivityNode is a node (just for the connectivity purpose) or a busbar section.
There are multiple options how to solve this gap
- Option 1: state in 301 and/or 452 that "if a ConnectivityNode represents a busbar it is required that there is an instance of BusbarSection which Terminal is associated with this ConnectivityNode."
- Option 2: revisit the need of BusbarSection class. If we can make it a bit easier perhaps doing the following is better approach: 1) add a boolean ConnectivityNode.isBusbarSection, this shoudl be required in 452 2) see if if true we require BusbarSection class instantiated or not; if we want to keep it for compatibility we shoudl write a constraint in 452 to require BusbarSection is the boolean is true and we can validate this.
I will put an issue in the IEC on this, but we need to see what the next steps will be within ENTSO-E. The BusbarSection class is in both v2.4 and v3 and it is a matter to say that the usage of it is required in some cases. In a way this is the main purpose of this class anyway. the point we need to state is that it is important to use it.
Updated by Richard de Groot 5 months ago
A choice for Option 2, doing away with BusbarSection, requires an alternative for busbar specifics. These include at least:
1. the attribute ipMax (used in e.g. short-circuit studies),
2. the relationship to VoltageControlZone (used for modelling centralised voltage control?),
3. busbars typically also have a rated thermal short-circuit current and rated thermal short-circuit current duration. These do not seem to be present in CIM yet.
Should these items also be moved from BusbarSection to ConnectivityNode? Or do they validate the separate class?