243   RCB Naming

Created: 24 Oct 2005

Status: In Force (green)

Part: Part 6 (2004)

Links:

Page: 65

Clause: 9.3..8

Paragraph:

Category: Issue for edition 2 of this part

Issue

The current SCL does not allow both forms of RCB implementations. (See 8-1 tissue 198).

Proposal

Both models in 7-2 need to be reflected in Part 6. Therefore, adding a RCB attribute in SCL to indicate if the RCB is indexed or not. The SCL attribute should be "indexed" (BOOLEAN) TRUE or FALSE.

8-1 needs to be updated to map this new SCL Attribute. This impacts the reccomendations on page 52/53. The 8-1 recommendations should be removed and replaced with:

"If the IEC 61850-6 RCB attribute "index" is TRUE, the RCB (URCB or BRCB) instance numbering shall start with 01 and progress through 99. Two digits of instance numbering is mandatory.

If the IEC 61850-6 RCB attribute "index" is FALSE, the RCB (URCB or BRCB) instance shall be with instance number of 01."

Discussion Created Status
The attribute "index" will be added to the RCB definition. For backwards compatibility and to cope with buffered RCBs, its default value, when missing, will be "true". The interpretation of the proposal (to be added in 8-1 as well as part 6) applies. 12 Dec 05 Ballot Period
The suggestion is a good idea to make the maximum number of non indexed RCBs visible in SCL. I support also Richards idea to make 'index=TRUE' the default value, and would also make this default value mandatory for buffered RCBs, where each client must be tied to a specific BRCB instance. Observe that 'index=FALSE' means that no static allocation of RCB instances to clients can be done in SCL. 27 Oct 05 Discussion (red)
For backwards compatibilty I propose to add that the default value of "indexed" is TRUE (so when "indexed" is not included the RCB's are indexed) 25 Oct 05 Triage

 

Privacy | Contact | Disclaimer

Tissue DB v. 24.4.30.1