tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4947745203111651722.post4373451753633090999..comments2024-03-05T00:27:49.553-08:00Comments on News on IEC 61850 and related Standards: IEC 61850 in the U.S. – A Personal View of IEC 61850Karlheinz Schwarzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14655052638097798754noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4947745203111651722.post-29972449603794293212012-01-28T20:54:31.278-08:002012-01-28T20:54:31.278-08:00Another benefit of using the standard models and t...Another benefit of using the standard models and the configuration language is the possibility for specific application domains, to define specific subsets (profiles) that can easily be re-used.<br />E.g., the model for monitoring, settings and control information of a CHP (combined heat and power) or an inverter for a PV application. Such a model would have the same logical nodes (LN) and data objects independent of the vendor. Vendors may extend the models for vendor-specific information their system has.<br />IEC 61850-7-1 defines the rules how to extend models.<br />Such profiles are templates that can be re-used in engineering or SCADA systems or the like - the crucial basic information is the same independent of the vendor! The electrical measurements would be modeled with the LN MMXU; phase A current would be in MyLogicalDevice/MMXU1.A.phsA.cVal.mag or in YourLD/MMXU1.A.phsA.cVal.mag ... since the path to the future smart(er) energy system is a marathon - not a sprint - we have some time to learn how to use models, configuration, GOOSE, sampled values, etc. ... Haste makes waste - take your time to see the benefits of a smooth migration to IEC 61850.Karlheinz Schwarzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14655052638097798754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4947745203111651722.post-69161801552153712822012-01-28T15:49:45.023-08:002012-01-28T15:49:45.023-08:00This is absolutely correct - there is a migration ...This is absolutely correct - there is a migration path and decision as to which parts of the IEC 61850 Standard are applied where and why.<br /><br />When we talk about DNP (colloquially stands for "Does No Protection" because it doesn’t do peer-to-peer :) ) there are typically two parts - the DNP between the relays and the RTU/Gateway/HMI/SOE Logger and the other between the RTU/Gateway etc and the control centre.<br /><br />In some cases this is more tricky to do than a greenfield “no brainer” – still the greenfield or complete system replacement may still need DNP/legacy comms outside the substation fence.<br /><br />Perhaps adding a new bay or replacement of aged/faulty devices might be the reason to start the embryo of a 61850 system in that substation – or at least provide for the possibility in the foreseeable future – you don’t want to replace like for like if in a few years time you will need to replace it again when another augmentation of an additional bay (wind farm, additional transformer …) or a bigger refurbishment or replacement of the system is undertaken. Refer Laufenberg Switzerland as a progressive upgrade of the primary plant and at the same time implementation of 61850. In these cases 61850 and the legacy protocol jointly exist at the bay level and to the SCADA – one day it would be called a complete 61850 substation but that will take time. <br /><br />In some cases the RTU has reached its end of life/no spares so implementing 61850 as part of a generic broader strategy by the utility doesn’t necessarily mean you HAVE to replace all the DNP relays or the DNP control centre.<br /><br />Or the old protection relay on one bay needs replacement (electromechanical, first generation electronic or even first generation microprocessor from the early 1980’s all now well beyond end of expected life). Like for like is not possible so what do you put in that particular bay or is this a catalyst for a bigger replacement project?<br /><br />However these are all still wires, device or protocol myopic views of “why do it”!<br /><br />The real reason why any 61850 system is worth considering is the “Reusable Engineering” it provides when [properly] applying the System Configuration Language in Part 6. <br /><br />Just recently I saw a project where the configuration of the devices was based on using the vendor-specific tools to configure 5 different vendors types of IEC 61850 devices on a 'serial number - by - serial number' approach and a spreadsheet of points handed to the SCADA engineer to manually map these into a point base data base of the RTU. <br /><br />Is it any wonder this approach suggests to them that ‘peer-to-peer’ GOOSE is not worth the effort compared to “a single wire from one bay to another”<br /><br />Unless the design office engineering process and tools are considered vs the effort of doing point based engineering of SCADA or terminal number based wiring schematics of protection, you’ve actually missed probably 90% of the real reason why you should actively consider the changeRodHugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00363784319885499006noreply@blogger.com