Increased and Sustainable Interoperability of intelligent devices in the power delivery domain is one of the crucial objectives of IEC 61850 and IEC 61400-25 (Wind Power). Interoperability is reached to a quite high degree – sure, there are a few examples where we see some challenges to improve one or the other technical problem!
My personal experience is that there is still some room for improvements – in the standard series IEC61850 and IEC 61400-25 and in the implementations and use of various vendors’ devices. One reason that causes headaches is linked to the many options in the standards. Vendors very often interpret the mandatory (m) and optional (o) designation as m=minimum, o=oops there is something we can ignore. Users often expect that they can decide to use mandatory and optional definitions – they expect that vendors have to implement almost all options.
There is – of course – a huge lack of understanding what and how to implement IEC 61850 and how to use standard compliant devices; and to figure out what goes wrong. Education of vendors and users is one of the most highly recommended actions to improve interoperability!
The other day I was called to help solving a six months’ discussion between two vendors of IEC 61850 compliant products, a third vendor using their devices, the project management and the user.
It took me (with a helmet and security jacket and security shoes) less than a day on the site (a medium voltage substation in a new coal fired 920 MW power plant) to figure out the reason of a non-interoperable behavior of the power plant control system (IEC 61850 client) that had a problem with one device type. The control system wants to set the TrgOps (trigger options) of the report control blocks in all devices. It sends a SetURCBValues service with the value [x111 11xx]. All but one devices accept this value (even they do not support one of the 5 bits that can be set to 1). One device supports only three out of the five [x100 11xx] – setting 3rd and 4th Bit true is not accepted and causes a negative SetURCBValues message (according to the definition in IEC 61850-7-2).
This minor issue causes a big trouble because the client (power plant control system) cannot set the General Interrogation to true – and cannot use it !!
I expect that this non-conformity will be fixed soon. It is not a big issue – but it caused six months trouble and created a lot of frustrations!
If the right expertise would get involved in such discussions at an early stage it is likely that many of the non-conformities would be solved very soon. Comprehensive education is required when it comes to IEC 61850 – the earlier the better. Be aware: IEC 61850 is not just another protocol.
Some complaints about the many options in the standard series are discussed in a paper published the other day.
“… the world needs — there is a user group already associated with IEC 61850 — is some type of organization that will work through 61850, come up with a subset that eliminates all the options and drive that down to the vendors and say, "here, do this." ”
This is a great approach. The main reason this has not yet been done is mainly the absence of users in the many discussions in the standardization working groups and the UCAIUG (UCA international users group), and in other discussions – and the lack in education of the users community.
Some pressure from the utilities on the vendors community to fix the relatively few known non-conformities in existing devices and tools would help to get rid of a lot of frustrations and to reach a higher level of interoperability. Many users are – not yet – in a position to figure out which device is conformant and which is not! A lot of these issues are independent of the question optional or mandatory and could easily be solved.
Recommendation #1:
People implementing and using the standard need (more) education.
Recommendation #2:
See recommendation #1.
Some discussion on Education.
Read statement of Vattenfall on Education for IEC 61850 [2007!!]
My personal experience is that there is still some room for improvements – in the standard series IEC61850 and IEC 61400-25 and in the implementations and use of various vendors’ devices. One reason that causes headaches is linked to the many options in the standards. Vendors very often interpret the mandatory (m) and optional (o) designation as m=minimum, o=oops there is something we can ignore. Users often expect that they can decide to use mandatory and optional definitions – they expect that vendors have to implement almost all options.
There is – of course – a huge lack of understanding what and how to implement IEC 61850 and how to use standard compliant devices; and to figure out what goes wrong. Education of vendors and users is one of the most highly recommended actions to improve interoperability!
The other day I was called to help solving a six months’ discussion between two vendors of IEC 61850 compliant products, a third vendor using their devices, the project management and the user.
It took me (with a helmet and security jacket and security shoes) less than a day on the site (a medium voltage substation in a new coal fired 920 MW power plant) to figure out the reason of a non-interoperable behavior of the power plant control system (IEC 61850 client) that had a problem with one device type. The control system wants to set the TrgOps (trigger options) of the report control blocks in all devices. It sends a SetURCBValues service with the value [x111 11xx]. All but one devices accept this value (even they do not support one of the 5 bits that can be set to 1). One device supports only three out of the five [x100 11xx] – setting 3rd and 4th Bit true is not accepted and causes a negative SetURCBValues message (according to the definition in IEC 61850-7-2).
This minor issue causes a big trouble because the client (power plant control system) cannot set the General Interrogation to true – and cannot use it !!
I expect that this non-conformity will be fixed soon. It is not a big issue – but it caused six months trouble and created a lot of frustrations!
If the right expertise would get involved in such discussions at an early stage it is likely that many of the non-conformities would be solved very soon. Comprehensive education is required when it comes to IEC 61850 – the earlier the better. Be aware: IEC 61850 is not just another protocol.
Some complaints about the many options in the standard series are discussed in a paper published the other day.
“… the world needs — there is a user group already associated with IEC 61850 — is some type of organization that will work through 61850, come up with a subset that eliminates all the options and drive that down to the vendors and say, "here, do this." ”
This is a great approach. The main reason this has not yet been done is mainly the absence of users in the many discussions in the standardization working groups and the UCAIUG (UCA international users group), and in other discussions – and the lack in education of the users community.
Some pressure from the utilities on the vendors community to fix the relatively few known non-conformities in existing devices and tools would help to get rid of a lot of frustrations and to reach a higher level of interoperability. Many users are – not yet – in a position to figure out which device is conformant and which is not! A lot of these issues are independent of the question optional or mandatory and could easily be solved.
Recommendation #1:
People implementing and using the standard need (more) education.
Recommendation #2:
See recommendation #1.
Some discussion on Education.
Read statement of Vattenfall on Education for IEC 61850 [2007!!]
Posts
