1718   RFLO LN, extension

Created: 15 Sep 2020

Status: Conformance Test Preparation

Part: Part 7-4 (2020; Edition 2.1)

Links: #810 RFLO LN, extension

Page: 234

Clause: 6.13.8

Paragraph: Table 147


IEC 61850-7-4:2010/AMD1:2020 6.13.8 LN: Fault locator Name: RFLO Table 147:
Logical node RFLO:
For a more efficient use of this logical node two additional data objects are needed:
the fault reactance X and the fault resistance R, both in Ohm.
Actually still only FltZ and FltDiskm exist in Measured and metered values, although tissue 810 is green, see https://iec61850.tissue-db.com/tissue/810


Add two data objects to the LN RFLO "Measured and metered values":
- FltX, CDC MV, Fault reactance, mandatory
- FltR, CDC MV, Fault resistance, mandatory

    Note: To see attachments you have to log-in first.

Discussion Created Status
Next step is to prepare/change conformance tests if necessary. 07 Jun 21 Conformance Test Preparation
UC 5a, Extent exusting LN with new DO (otional)
Extension was already agreed in #810 but unfortunately forgotten in ed.2.1
Conclusion: no compatibility issues!
04 Jun 21 Analysis Of Compatibility
Change to Verify Draft Implamentation 13 Apr 21 Verify Draft Implementation
Change to stage: Drafting implementation. 16 Dec 20 Drafting Implementation
Add DO FltX (CDC MV) Fault reactance and FltR (CDC MV) Fault resistance. Presence condition for both:"OFCond(1)"

Change presence condition of FltZ to "OFcond(1)".

Add text before LN table:
Cond(1) Either FltZ or the two DO FltR and FltX should be modelled.
27 Nov 20 Discussion (red)
Some end-user are interested more in FltX/FltR depending on further use of these values. I would agree to make the presence condition "AllOnlyOneGroup(n)", so that only either FltZ or FltX/FltR is present. 02 Nov 20 Discussion (red)
I suggest to refuse this request.
FltZ and the proposed FltX/FltR will contain duplicate information (polar and rectangular representations of the same value).
Only one of the two representations should be modeled.
22 Oct 20 Discussion (red)
FltZ is modelled as optional data object. So FltR and FltX cannot be mandatory.
Shall we modelled FltX/FltR exclusively to FltZ, so there will be no contradication between results of calculation?
Can this extension of RFLO be part of the new amd2.2 or is it a future ed.3 issue?
22 Oct 20 Discussion (red)
Accepted as tissue, discussion is open. 22 Sep 20 Accepted
Unfortunately tissue #810 has not been considered in amd 2.1.
So it would be valueable to open the tissue process/discussion for it.
15 Sep 20 Triage


Privacy | Contact | Disclaimer

Tissue DB v.