Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

Terrence Smith, Richard Hunt GE Digital Energy - Multilin
Abstract-Each wired termination in a substation represents a cost associated with engineering, installing and testing that wired point. These costs include the obvious financial labor costs, but also include intangible costs such as installation and commissioning time, potential for human error, panel space, increased resistive burden in circuits, and larger raceways. Additionally, each wired termination represents stranded engineering time that is used to design these terminations rather than allowing the engineering staff to solve problems. This paper seeks to expose some of the hidden financial costs and reliability costs associated with copper process wiring. Additionally this paper will discuss ways in which modern IEDs can be fully implemented to further reduce wiring. The cost and reliability benefits associated with the reduced wiring will be discussed and quantified. Some of the solutions to be addressed include the use of breaker IEDs as an interface for breaker control, IED to SCADA communications, IED to IED communications, internal lockout Relays, IED pushbutton control, and process bus. Each of these solutions are currently available in todays market place and have varying degrees of acceptance within the industry. The benefits and liabilities of each solution using traditional IED implementation versus maximized IED implementation shall be discussed.

environment of the electrical industry. The current electrical industry environment will see a loss of qualified engineers and construction personnel at a time when the electrical infrastructure needs a major overhaul. Funding for future projects as well as time to implement those projects, will continue to be condensed. The decisions engineers make in design affect the cost and the time to implement protection and control projects. In the quest to lower costs and time to implement, most of the low hanging fruit (SCADA to IED communications, IED to IED communications and IED as breaker control) is well documented and has varying degrees of acceptance within the industry.

A-Phase TOC

B-Phase TOC

C-Phase TOC

Neutral TOC

A-Phase IOC

B-Phase IOC

C-Phase IOC

I. Introduction The benefits of reducing wiring are so great that reduction of wiring is not a new concept. As protection and control designs have evolved, several methods of reducing wiring have also evolved. The most notable example is the use of trip functions developed in logic inside a microprocessor based IED verses a wired trip bus with discrete electromechanical relays as shown in Figure 1. In Figure 1, the wired trip bus on the bottom represents traditional wiring where protection and control logic was performed discretely by wiring components. Parallel components represent OR gates and series components representing AND gates. The logical trip bus on the top of figure 1 accomplishes the same functionality in digital logic as the wired trip bus performs using wiring. The title of this paper might draw the reader to conclude that the industry has a problem with wiring. There is in fact, no problem with wiring. Protection and control wiring has been successfully used for about one hundred years. The problem actually lies with the labor and the time needed to design and install the wiring and the business

Figure 1: Trip Logic verses wired Trip Bus

Newer designs, which eliminate wiring, must be evaluated to insure that the solution is reliable, secure, and cost effective. In evaluating the cost effectiveness of a solution the true costs of the solution must be quantifiably measured against the true costs of the current design. Additionally, several questions must be considered, included among those questions are: How and why is this saving cost? Does this solution save cost in one category, but cause other cost to increase? Does this solution trade one problem for another and cause hidden costs? Is the cost savings solution based on open standards and protocols, which will continue to be supported at the end of life of the IEDs? In order to answer the questions above, a thorough knowledge of the true costs of wired terminations must be understood. The majority of the costs associated with wired terminations center around the labor needed to install the termination rather than the material being installed. Based on

Page 1 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

this cost breakdown, it is easy to understand that the greatest potential for cost savings on protection and control projects come from reducing the labor necessary to implement the project. The actual labor to implement the project centers around three categories: engineering, installation, and commissioning.

Terminal Block. Point on a Schematic Diagram

Figure 2 Typical Points on a Schematic Diagram

During the engineering phase of a traditional protection and control project, each wired termination starts its life as a point on a schematic or elementary drawing as shown on figure 2. Each point on each schematic must in some way communicate to the installing wireman how this point will physically connect terminations with wires. This is typically done with wiring diagrams that are developed from the elementary diagrams. These wiring diagrams must show how equipment is physically wired internal to a piece of equipment or panel and must also show all of the wired interface cables that piece of equipment has with the outside world. This results in the designer developing drawings for the equipment that have hundreds if not thousands of terminations. Wiring is typically shown in a pointto-point method where one terminal end shows the opposite terminal end device and terminal designation as shown in figure 3. A significant amount of time is spent designing and then drafting each termination.

The more time spent with a particular drawing and the higher the information density on the drawing, the more likely the drawing will have errors. In the design-build process, the earlier an error is made and the longer it persists through the process, the more costly the consequences of and correction for the error. This causes the designer to insure every precaution is taken to reduce human error. The quest to reduce error introduces a check or peer review process, in which an individual, untainted with the design process to date, checks the complete design. The checker must review each point of the elementary diagrams, each termination on the wiring diagrams, and then verify the correctness of each letter and line on the drawing. Errors discovered by the checker, then go back to the designer and the design goes back through the design, draft, and check process. The complete design process is shown in figure 4. below, with the block size representing the approximate time for each of the steps in the process with the wiring design occupying the most time. Each step in the process requires design, drafting, and checking as shown in the process chart of figure 4. The design process is further complicated because the design, draft, and check process is carried out by different individuals. As each individual hands-off his work package, it must go into the next individuals work queue, which slows down the flow of the process. .
Engineer Prepares/ R ecieves W ork Scope

S ingle Line Diagram

Engineer Prepares Elem entary D iagram s

H an do ffs

Three Line Diagram D rafter Creates/ M odifies Drawing H as E rro rs Engineer C hecks D ra fte rs w o rk

Elem entary D iagram s

Error Free

W iring D iagram s

C able Schedules

Bill of M aterials

Engineer Issues Com pleted Package

Figure 4: Engineering Process, block size representing approximate time for each process Figure 3: Typical Point-to-Point Wiring Diagram Page 2 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

For a typical high voltage breaker, the engineer would create up to six schematic diagrams that would include: Breaker AC/DC motor control, breaker and IED alarms, breaker trips, breaker close and IED control, CT connections, and breaker failure. The typical high voltage breaker would have eight wiring diagrams associated with it that include: Breaker CT terminations, Breaker mechanism internal wiring, breaker mechanism external wiring, and up to five sheets of panel wiring to describe the sections of the relay panel located in the control house. For a single high voltage breaker this equates to as many as fifteen drawings for one breaker. The time necessary to create, draft and check these drawing can vary widely due to several diverse factors that range from information density on the drawing to ability and experience of personnel creating or modifying the drawings. Typical estimation numbers are shown in table 1 below. This estimate shows a total for design hours of five hundred and fifty two hours to create the drawings necessary to implement a breaker addition. This estimate would not include administrative costs such as scoping the project, project management, procurement support, and installation support.
Table 1 Engineering Estimate Hours-High Voltage Breaker

Drawing Name Three Line Diagra Schematics Panel Wiring Breaker Wiring

Extended Extended Engineer Draft Hours Hours 8 8 72 80 40 208 8 8 96 100 40 252

Extended Check Hours 4 4 24 40 20 92

Single Line Diagra

Once a design is completed, it is issued to the construction workforce for installation. Each wire identified in the wiring diagrams is housed in a multi-conductor cable. The wireman must identify each cable and its route from drawings and install those cables by pulling them from one destination to another. At this point, a termination must be identified from the wiring diagrams, the physical wire located in its multi-conductor cable, and then split out from the cable that it is housed in, terminated, and landed on the device. Wires must then be labeled, and trained into a neat and uniform manner to facilitate future revision or maintenance. The majority of the wiremans labor is consumed not in actually performing the termination, but in preparing for the termination by reading drawings

and locating the correct wire. The more wires the wireman has to deal with, the more complex his task and the longer it takes him to complete each termination. Since such a large portion of the wiremans time is spent deciphering the drawings, each eliminated wiring termination simplifies the wiremans task and pays an exponential return on reducing the necessary labor to complete the entire project. If the wireman has a constant percentage of errors, each eliminated termination also reduces the total number of errors the wireman will make. Additionally, each wired termination is a possible point of failure. The failure point may arise from faulty workmanship, incorrectly landing a wire, faulty materials or incorrect design. These possible failures may not manifest themselves immediately, but lay dormant for years. The consequences of these failures have the potential to create nuisance outages or failure to properly clear a fault. These types of failures cannot be tolerated on the electrical system so every precaution must be taken to find these points of failures and eliminate them prior to energization of the system. This necessitates a commissioning process for the wired protection and control system. This commissioning process requires that each termination be evaluated to ensure that is correct and properly performed. Additionally, the protection and control system must be functionally commissioned to ensure that each component of the system performs it proper functions, and that the system is dependable and secure. The personnel who perform the commissioning process must be capable of understanding the engineering design, the installation process, and protection and control principles. This results in a need for a highly skilled commissioning workforce resulting in high labor rates. Energization of the completed project is usually tied to a fixed date. Since the commissioning process occurs at the end of the design/installation process it carries a large risk factor for project completion. Any schedule overruns throughout the project effect the start of the commissioning process. This causes the commissioning process to be the most likely to incur premium costs associated with overtime. The combination of expensive labor rates and overtime premium cause the commissioning process to have a very high cost. Each wired termination that can be eliminated reduces the commissioning time not only because there are less terminations to commission, but also because fewer terminations simplifies the design. A simpler design makes resolution of errors quicker. Costs for an average termination can easily be obtained by dividing the number of terminations

Page 3 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

for a project by the total time to design and install, and then multiplying by the loaded labor rate. This gives a loaded labor cost. When comparing a solution to reduce wiring, this loaded labor cost is used to compare time and cost savings. The labor cost of a wired termination, however, ignores several intangible benefits associated with reducing wiring and wiring time. One of the unqualifiable benefits that is ignored is the true benefit of freeing the labor to do other tasks. Electric utilities operate in a business environment where the limiting factor is the number of qualified, trained humans available to perform work on the power system. Freeing labor has the obvious benefit of increasing productivity, as the same personnel can complete projects faster. In this case, there is the less obvious benefit of freeing labor from the mundane and routine tasks of developing wiring diagrams and terminating wires, to allow humans to do the things that humans are good at: solving problems. Beyond the obvious labor costs of reduced wiring there are other intangible benefits to eliminating wired terminations in the protection and control design. These benefits include: reduced installation and commissioning time, reduced engineering time, reduced raceway requirements, reduced panel space, and lower life cycle cost of the project. Reducing the installation and commissioning time bring the obvious benefit of reducing the outage time necessary to install and commission the project. Reducing the combined engineering, installation, and commissioning time reduces the overall project schedule from conception to energization, which is beneficial to fast-track projects. Reducing the raceway requirements shortens installation time and in retrofit situations where raceway is limited have the potential to make a project feasible that otherwise would not be. Reducing the panel space necessary for the protection and control design provides the obvious benefit of needing fewer panels, which equates to a smaller control house. Life cycle costs can also be affected by fewer wired terminations. IED replacement is also greatly simplified when fewer wiring terminations are involved. The following discussion describes typical protection and control wiring practices and how those practices can be optimized to reduce the number of wired terminations in the design. Five case studies will be analyzed: a medium voltage switchgear where relay pushbuttons, internal lockouts, and SCADA communications are used to simplify the trip and close circuits, a breaker and a half scheme where IED to SCADA

communications, a control IED, and IED pushbuttons are used to optimize the design, a transformer alarm circuit where a control IED is used as an alarm aggregator, and a process bus solution used to eliminate copper process wiring between the IEDs and primary substation equipment II. Medium Voltage Switchgear The trip circuit of a typical medium voltage switchgear is shown in Figure 5. The IED associated with this switchgear is underutilized and there are several areas where the trip circuit can be simplified by using IED logic and communications. The IED actual trips a lockout relay that then trips the switchgear and there are six lock-out relays, a DCS (SCADA) contact, and a control switch that trip the breaker. The control switch and the lockout relays can be eliminated with the use of IED logic, communications and pushbuttons.

Figure 5: Switchgear Trip Circuit

Most IEDs can now be optioned with control pushbuttons on the IED. These pushbuttons allow the elimination of discrete control switches on the relay panel that gives a cost benefit from not purchasing discrete components, from not having to install the components, from not having to wire the components, and from freeing panel space so it gives a real estate benefit. In the case of the trip circuit of Figure 5, the trip circuit can be simplified if IED pushbutton control is used with internal lockout relays. IEDs can be optioned with nonvolatile latches and mechanically latching output contacts that allow these lockout relays to be created inside relay logic. Non-volatile latches provide a permanent logical flag inside the IED that is safely stored and will not reset upon reboot of the IED. The non-volatile latch may be used inside of IED logic such that devices that would normally trip a lock-out relay set the latch. The latch set operand can then be paralleled with other trip functions to create a common logical trip bus. Mechanically latching output contacts are output contacts that are mechanically bi-stable and controlled by two separate coils (open and close).

Page 4 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

Mechanically latching output contacts retain their state even when the IED is not powered.

Figure 6: Simplified Switchgear Trip Circuit

III. Switchgear Close Circuit Lockout relays are used to not only trip equipment, but also prevent re-energization of the equipment until the relay is reset. When the protective zones interlock with several other protective zones the lockout contacts in the close string can become cumbersome as seen in the medium voltage metal-clad switchgear circuit of Figure 8. In Figure 8 a transformer lockout, a switchgear main lockout, a breaker failure lockout, a tie lockout, and a unit lockout are wired in series to prevent close until each of these lockouts is reset.

The combinations of the control pushbutton and the internal lockout relays can reduce the trip circuit from eight parallel contacts to the one IED contact output and one DCS contact as shown in Figure 6. The IED contact has to be driven by the control pushbutton and the latches that create the internal lock-out relays. Several of the lock-out relays used in this trip circuit are not tripped by the switchgear IED but are tripped by protective elements in adjacent protective zones, such as the transformer lockout 86-TA and the unit lockout 86U. Since the protective functions for these lockouts are in adjacent IEDs it becomes necessary for those IEDs to communicate to the switchgear IEDs that those protective functions have operated and the associated latches should be set. Several vendor specific communications protocols exist that can perform this type of messaging, but since this information is required by multiple IEDs from multiple vendors the message must be an open protocol, multi-cast message. The protocol that most easily meets this requirement in IEC 61850 GOOSE messaging. In the IED logic of figure 7, the logical trip circuit has been designed to receive GOOSE messages from adjacent IEDs and to latch elements to create logical trip functions.

Figure 8: Close Circuit with multiple lock-out relays

Consider the close circuit of Figure 8 where contacts from five lockout relays are wired in series with an IED contact that is closed when the sources on either side of the switchgear meet synchronous conditions. This permissive string of contacts is then wired to a parallel string of close contacts that actually serve to close the breaker. This close circuit has been recreated with relay logic in figure 9. In this logic diagram, each of the discrete contacts that cause close have been replaced with relay operands and or-ed together in the upper left corner of the diagram. Nonvolatile latches are used for each of the lockout functions and the negative logic of the latch (not) is and-ed with the IED synchronism operand and the close functions to create the close supervision. The logic of figure 9 replaces the wired contacts of Figure 8 with one output contact. The wired contacts string requires forty-two wired terminations to build the circuit while the single contact required for figure 9 requires two

Figure 7: Switchgear Trip Logic Page 5 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

terminations. The installation cost savings are obvious due to the reduced number of wires, but this configuration also has the ability to reduce the engineering labor because the relay logic can be documented by the relay setup software and eliminate the need to document this information on schematic diagrams as well as wiring diagrams. Most IED are capable of being configured with graphical based logic diagrams like figure 9 once the relay is configured the logic can be printed to serve as the document of record of the configuration.
CONTROL PUSHBUTTON 2 ON Auto Close On (VO7) Rem ote Close On (VI2) Cont Ip 1 On(H5a) Latch 1 TRIPBUS 1 OP CONTROL PUSHBUTTON 3 ON Set Reset On Off 86A(VO1) 20

OR OR
22

21

A ND A

Close BRKR (VO2)

Operate Seal-In

Cont Op 2 (H2) I on I off V on V off

Latch 2
R R

86TATripped On (RI1) 86T Reset On (RI4)

Set Reset

On Off

86TA(VO3)

23

Latch 3 BKR FAIL 1 TRIPOP PUSHBUTTON 4 ON Set Reset On Off 86BF (VO4)

24

Latch 4
R R

86T Tripped On (RI3) 86T Reset On (RI4)

Set Reset

On Off

86Tie (VO5)

25

Latch 5
R R

86U Tripped On (RI5) 86U Reset On (RI6)

Set Reset

On Off

86U (VO6)

26

SYNC 1 CLSOP

Figure 9: Internal Lockout Relays used to block close

IV. Switchgear DCS/SCADA Communications The simplified trip circuit of Figure 6 has the ability for further simplification with IED communications to the DCS control. The DCS output contact can be incorporated into relay logic and is shown as the second input element remote open in figure 9. This further reduces the trip circuit to only one IED contact output. The original trip circuit had eight parallel contacts and has now been reduced to one contact with the use of communications, IED pushbuttons, and IED Logic. This has the benefit of simplifying the control circuit design and wiring which can reduce engineering and installation time. Additionally the control circuit can be identical for all applications, with only the logic needing to be changed for different applications and if future revision is necessary, it only requires logical changes rather than wiring changes. Commissioning the simplified circuit can be optimized also because the IED can be commissioned by bench testing the IED logic and communications. This reduces the amount of commissioning time required in the field after installation.

V. Optimization Benefits and Detriments The optimizations techniques discussed above are not without detriments. In the case of the communications between IEDs and IEDs and the control system, a communications infrastructure is necessary. This will require additional equipment to be purchased, designed, and installed, resulting in additional costs. These costs must be weighed against any costs saved by using the communications. There are also several operational considerations that must be addressed when using IED pushbuttons and internal lockout relays. Most operations personnel are accustomed to operating with discreet devices and the operational procedures associated with these devices are well understood and accepted. Utilization of IED logic to accomplish these functions will require thoroughly retraining operations personnel in the correct use of the functions and may require rewriting operational procedures based on the use the functions. The effort necessary to retrain and rewrite must be weighed against the benefits associated with the simplified control circuit. The use of SCADA communications also has operational and organizational detriments. Typically the protection and control design groups and the SCADA groups have operated independent of one another with different procedures and practices. If SCADA communications are used to control the switchgear, any changes to SCADA are now changes to the protection and control design and must be managed as changes to the design. This means that protection and control practices that deal with design review, implementation, and configuration control will now apply to SCADA changes which historically has not been the case. The SCADA group will have to be organized such that it can accommodate those changes and the efforts to organize the group must be weighted against the benefits perceived from the changes. VI. Breaker and a Half Scheme Before methods of reducing wiring for the breaker and a half scheme can be analyzed, it is necessary to understand what must be wired for this scheme and how it is typically wired. Consider the single line diagram for a breaker and a half scheme shown in Figure 10 below. If the line is protected by redundant protective relaying, the process information necessary for one of the two breakers would be AC currents, breaker status, and alarms to the Relays, SCADA and DFR as shown on the right of Figure 10. Process control to the breaker would include Trip and Close from the

Page 6 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

Relays, from SCADA, and to the DFR (status only). These process inputs can be seen in table 1 below which shows a total of sixty-two wires for one breaker of the two-breaker scheme.

Table 1: Typical Process Inputs/Outputs and Destinations Wires Req. to Hardwire Alarms Wired Process and Input/Output Process Destination Control IED 1, SCADA, CT 1 DFR 4 IED 2, SCADA, CT 2 DFR 4 CT 3 CT 4 Adjacent Zone IED 1, SCADA, DFR Adjacent Zone IED 1, SCADA, DFR NA Breaker TR/CL supply 1 NA Breaker TR/CL supply 2 NA Breaker AC supply From IED 1, IED 2, SCADA, to DFR From IED 1, IED 2, SCADA, to DFR To IED1, IED 2, SCADA To IED1, IED 2, SCADA To SCADA To SCADA To IED1, IED 2,SCADA SCADA SCADA Total Wires Total Terminations 4 4 2 2 4 6 6 6 6 2 2 6 2 2 62 124

C T 1 C T 2

3Y

3Y

CB1 52

3Y

3Y 3Y

Wires Req. for SCADA Comm. 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 48 96

52-2

C T 3 ToA djacent Zone C T 4 3phasecurrents

IE D -1

IE D -2 C T 4 ToA djacent Zone C T 3 o Breaker Trip(2) o Breaker Close

DC1 DC2 AC1 Trip

52-1 o o o o o o Breaker statuspoints(-a, -b) G aspressurealarm Springalarm M aintenancealarm Tripcoil m onitor C losecoil m onitor

C T 2 C T 1

Figure 10: Typical Breaker and a Half Single Line Diagram & Breaker Process Values

Close Breaker 52a Breaker 52b Breaker Gas Alarm Spring Alarm Breaker Maintenance Trip Coil Monitor Close Coil Monitor

Most process inputs have multiple process destinations where the information is needed. Consider the breaker status contact 52a. This contact needs to pass information to each IED, and SCADA for a total of six wires for this one contact. Historically, the need for current transformer inputs was accomplished by wiring SCADA transducers in series with the IEDs. It has become well accepted within the utility industry to eliminate the current transducers and allow the SCADA master to poll the relay for these analog process values. This same method can be applied to the digital inputs and digital output of the process information to reduce the total number of wires as tabulated in column four of table 1 below. The SCADA master can read the breaker status and alarms from the IEDs and can write control points for trip and close to the IED using the same communications cables that the IED uses to read analog values from the IED. Utilizing the communications between SCADA and the IED has reduced the number of wires from sixty-two wires per breaker to fortyeight wires per breaker. Since each wire has a termination on each end, this reduces the number of terminations per breaker from one hundred twenty four to ninety-six. When discrete digital process values are needed by multiple devices, the value of wiring those signals once and communicating them to the rest of the devices increases as the number of devices increases.

Beyond IED to SCADA communications, IEDs may also need to communicate with other IEDs for functions such as: zone interlocking schemes, breaker failure initiation, reclose initiation, and automatic transfer. This communication has historically been performed with contact closures in one IED asserting discrete contact inputs in a second IED. This type of messaging is easily encapsulated into messages that can be communicated between relays via communications networks and communications protocols such as IEC 61850 GOOSE messaging or vendor proprietary protocols. Using communications messaging has the ability to save two terminations on the sending IED and two terminations on the receiving IED for a total of four wired terminations

Page 7 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

per message bit. If several messages are to be sent between relays this can add up to several wired terminations. The more immediate cost benefit of IED to IED communications can be realized within the IED because the IED may be procured with less input and output hardware. An IED with less hardware is less expensive than a fully optioned IED. This must be balanced, however, against any cost increase associated with the communications equipment. VII. Breaker Controller IED IED to IED communications protection schemes enable IED controller schemes where one IED or set of IEDs act as a protective IEDs and a separate IED acts as a controller. The protective IED may be placed in relay panels inside the control house while the control IED is mounted either inside the switchgear or in close proximity to the switchgear. This scheme allows the protective IEDs to pass protection and control outputs to the control IED via communications, which can reduce the amount of cable that is routed from the control house to the switchgear. A cost benefit is derived from routing less cable due to the obvious cost of the cable, but also because the cable raceway may be reduced in size. Additionally, the control IED may be mounted and wired by the breaker manufacture, meaning that the breaker and controller will arrive to the job-site pre-wired and tested, saving the time it would normally take to wire and test these function on-site.
SCADA Protective IED Ethernet Switch
Control House

breaker will be required to have control functions of trip control and close control and will be required to send status for breaker status, spring alarm, breaker gas alarm, maintenance mode alarm, trip coil monitor, and close coil monitor. If this scheme is applied to the breaker and a half arrangement that was previously analyzed, additional wires and wired terminations can be eliminated as shown in Table 3 makes the assumption that all discrete inputs and outputs will be passed to the protective IEDs via communications, except the trip circuits which will still be hardwired. This reduces the number of field-installed wires from forty-eight to twenty-six. The total wired reduction using communications for discrete inputs and outputs to SCADA and the Control IED has reduced the total number of terminations to be performed on-site from one hundred twenty four per breaker to fifty-two per breaker.
Table 3: Process Inputs/Outputs and Destinations Showing IED Controller Wires Wires Req. to Req. at Hardwire Wires Control Alarms Req. for House SCADA with IED Wired Process Process and Input/Output Destination Control Comm. Controller IED 1, SCADA, CT 1 4 4 4 DFR IED 2, SCADA, CT 2 4 4 4 DFR Adjacent Zone IED 1, SCADA, CT 3 4 4 4 DFR Adjacent Zone IED 1, SCADA, CT 4 4 4 4 DFR NA Breaker TR/CL supply DC1 2 2 2 1 NA Breaker TR/CL supply DC2 2 2 2 2 NA Breaker AC1 AC supply 4 2 2 From IED 1, IED 2, SCADA, to Trip 6 4 4 DFR From IED 1, IED 2, SCADA, to Close 6 4 0 DFR To IED1, IED Breaker 52a 2, SCADA 6 4 0 To IED1, IED Breaker 52b 2, SCADA 6 4 0

Communication Message passes Switchgear status, alarms and control from the Control House to the Switchgear

Switchgear

52

Trip Close 52b 52a Gas Alarm Spring Alarm Maint. Alarm TCM CCM

Control IED

Figure 11: Control IED used for Breaker Controller

In a breaker and a half scheme, the control IED, located at the switchgear, is tasked with control functions of the breaker as well as passing status and alarm indication from the breaker to the protective IEDs or the SCADA Master. A typical

Page 8 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

Breaker Gas Alarm Spring Alarm Breaker Maintenance Trip Coil Monitor Close Coil Monitor

Table 4: Control Wiring To SCADA To SCADA To IED1, IED 2,SCADA SCADA SCADA Total Wires Total Terminations 2 2 6 2 2 62 124 2 2 2 2 2 48 96 0 Control Function 0 0 0 0 26 52 Trip Close Reclose Enabled Reclose Disabled Local Mode Remote Mode Breaker 1 Maintenance Total Wires Req. Wires Req. with to Hardwire pushbutton control 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IX. Transformer Alarm Aggregator VIII. IED Pushbuttons Typical control functions that would normally control the IED are: reclose enabled/disabled, local/remote, breaker maintenance, breaker trip, and breaker close. Each of these control functions have the ability to reduce two wired terminations at the control switch and two more at either a terminal block for the trip and close functions or at the IED in the case of the IED control functions. Table 4 below shows the potential savings associated with utilizing the control pushbuttons of the IED. In Table 4, fourteen wires have been eliminated which eliminates twenty-eight wired terminations. For the breaker and a half scheme of Figure 10, the combination of SCADA communications, an IED controller and pushbuttons on the IED have eliminated eighty-six wired terminations per breaker. Since there are two breakers in the breaker and a half scheme, this eliminates one hundred and seventy-two wired terminations. The real estate benefit of IED pushbuttons is realized by comparing the number of relays that can be accommodated onto a relay panel. External discrete control switches can take as much panel space as the relay itself. This means that incorporating the control switches into the relay allows twice as many relays to be accommodated onto the same panel, meaning that half as many panels are needed and also meaning the physical size of the control building must accommodate half as many panels. A smaller control building is cheaper because it lowers cost of material, labor, and transportation and creates a smaller footprint on the site. Control IEDs are not limited to breaker control. They may also be used as alarm and data aggregators for primary equipment such as transformers. In this scenario, the IED is placed at the primary equipment and communicates messages back to protective IEDs or the SCADA master. Typically, discrete alarms for a transformer are: winding high temperature alarm, winding temperature trip, oil temperature alarm, oil temperature trip, low oil level alarm, low oil level trip, sudden pressure alarm, loss of cooling, and Buckholtz alarm. If each of these alarms requires two wires, this has the potential to eliminate an eighteen-conductor cable that would normally be routed from the control house to the transformer. The control IED could also be optioned with RTD inputs that could be wired to transformer RTDs. Typical temperature inputs that are measured by SCADA are: winding temperature, oil temperature, and ambient temperature. The SCADA master poll these temperatures from the IED. The control IED could also serve as an aggregator to other transformer IEDs such as on-line dissolved gas monitors, with alarms or analog inputs wired to the control IED rather than running cables back to the control house. Total wired savings by using a control IED as an alarm aggregator is shown in Table 5. In Table 5, twenty-seven wires can be eliminated causing fifty-four wired terminations to be eliminated. The IED controller scheme also adds benefit in that the controller can be mounted by either the transformer manufacturer or switchgear manufacturer and wired by that manufacturer. This eliminates the construction time necessary for wireman to wire these functions in the field. Since it can be commissioned at the manufacturers facility, it eliminates the need to commission these functions in the field. In essence the only work required when the controller arrives with the

Page 9 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

primary equipment is to connect the communications cables to the controller and functionally test the communications. This has the potential to create a large labor savings and outagetime savings.
Table 5: Transformer Process Inputs/Outputs Showing IED Controller Sets of Wires Req. to Hardwire Alarms and Control Sets of Wires Req. at Control House with IED Controller

conservative interpretation of NERC CIP, use of this scheme will be either limited or unavailable. X. IED with Ethernet Modules This paper makes the recommendation that communications, such as IEC 61850 GOOSE messaging, and internal relay logic, be used to replace control logic performed with copper wiring and auxiliary devices. The logic behind this recommendation is to simplify the physical design of the protection and control system, thereby speeding up overall design, installation, and commissioning time. Replacing contact logic with communications does not necessarily lead to a reduction in material costs. Copper wiring is replaced with communications equipment, including Ethernet switches and routers. However, the communications network between devices can use the same communications network as SCADA or DCS systems. Like all wiring, careful design of the communications network is necessary to ensure operational reliability in a cost-effective manner. As communications is fully utilized inside a utility protection and control design, the communications wiring may become congested, especially if a redundant Ethernet topology is used with central switches located in the control house. An optimization method must be addressed which simplifies the communications design of the control schemes. Using IEDs that are optioned with Ethernet switches inside the IED can eliminate a large portion of the communications cabling and simplify the routing of communication cables. This topology along with the traditional communication topology is shown in Figure 12 below. If the IEDs house Ethernet switches, a complete ring topology can be created by simply connected each IED to the IED below it in the panel and IEDs at the top and bottom of the panels can be connected to the IEDs in adjacent panels. This topology reduces the communications cabling because external Ethernet switches are no longer necessary and the cable routing to these switches is also not necessary. As seen in Figure 12 the traditional communications scheme requires two Ethernet cables be routed from each IED to the Ethernet switches. The length of each of these cables must reach from the IED to the Ethernet switch. The switch module communications still requires two Ethernet cables per IED, but since the cables are routed to switch modules in adjacent IEDs the cable runs are much shorter.

Process Destination Process Point Winding High Temperature SCADA Alarm Winding High Temperature SCADA Trip Alarm Oil Temperature Alarm SCADA Oil Temperature Trip Alarm SCADA Low Oil Level Alarm SCADA Low Oil Level SCADA Trip Alarm Supped Pressure SCADA Trip Alarm Buckholtz Trip Alarm SCADA Loss of Cooiling AC SCADA Windind Temperature (RTD) SCADA Oil Temperatue SCADA (RTD) Ambient Temperature SCADA (RTD) Total

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3

0 0

3 27

0 0

The IED controller scheme is not without challenges. The major challenge to implementing this scheme is in the utilities interpretation of NERC CIP critical cyber asset identification. Currently NERC CIP identifies critical cyber assets as a device that communicates via a routable protocol and as a critical cyber asset must be maintained inside a six-walled physical security perimeter, which would limit the IEDs ability to be located at the primary equipment. This paper has proposed that communication from control IEDs be carried out via IEC 61850 GOOSE messaging, which by definition is a layer two protocol and is non-routable. IED communicating with this protocol would not be classified as a critical cyber asset. However, if the utility has taken a more

Page 10 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

T ra d itio n a lC o m m u n ica tio ns

Sw itchM o d u leC o m m u n ica tio ns

Statio nTopolo gy

StationTop olo gy

Sta tio nLayou t

Sta tio nLayou t

Figure 12: Traditional Communications verses IED Switch Module Communications

XI. Process Bus The protection and control system is actually a process control system. Process measurements such as equipment status, current, and voltage, are connected to process controllers, specifically protective relays. Protective relays analyze these quantities, and take control actions, such as opening circuit breakers to isolate faulted pieces of the power system. The process measurement system includes all the wiring between primary equipment in the switchyard and protective relays (and other IEDs) in the control house. Process bus is nothing more than the concept of using a digital communications architecture to replace the copper wiring between primary station equipment and the control house. The solutions described in this paper focus on improving the design of the protection and control system by fully utilizing the power of microprocessor-based relays and communications. Communications and programmable logic replace contact logic and auxiliary devices. This results in great savings in design and installation time, and increases the reliability of the system. However, these solutions do not address the large number of copper wires, and resulting copper terminations, to transmit data across the switchyard. The IEC 61850 communications standard provides the framework for actual, practical process bus solutions. IEC 61850-9-2 describes the data formats necessary to send analog sampled values between an interface device in the substation (known as a merging unit) and protective relays in the control house.[4] Functionally, this moves analog-to-digital conversion, and analog data sampling, from protective relays to the merging unit. IEC 61850 GOOSE messages can be transmitted between

relays and contact I/O devices in the switchyard for control and status information. Consider the high voltage circuit breaker of figure 13. It is typical to pull 11 multi-conductor copper cables between the control house and the circuit breaker. There are 67 copper wiring terminations to make, by hand, in the field, once the circuit breaker arrives on site. These same copper wires must be terminated in the control house as well. With process bus, it is possible to have the circuit breaker manufacturer install Process Interface Units (PIUs) during their manufacturing process. A PIU consists of merging units to acquire currents and voltages, and contact inputs and outputs to provide equipment status and equipment control. Each PIU is wired to acquire signals from 2 sets of CTs, and all necessary status and control points. The installation process on site then becomes connecting fiber optic cable to the PIUs. The only field terminations necessary for the breaker are then those for DC and AC power.
1 6 .8M H te rm in a tio n s B re a k e r 7 7 .5M H 1 3 4te rm in a tio n s 3 1M H e n g in e e rin g 1 6M H c o m m is s io n in g 7 .8M H te rm in a tio n s B re a k e r 2 9 .8M H 1 6fie ldte rm in a tio n s 1 1 6O E M te rm in a tio n s 1 1 .1M H e n g in e e rin g 4M H c o m m is s io n in g C o p p e rc a b le s b e tw e e nP IU a n db re a k e r

5 2

5 2

4 C# 1 0fo rC T 1 2 C# 1 0fo rC o n tro l 1 2 C# 1 6fo rS C A D A 7 C# 1 6fo rS C A D A 2 C# 6fo rD C 4 C# 1 0fo rA C 4 C# 1 0fo rC T 4 4M H p u llin g c a b le s

C o p p e rc a b le s b e tw e e nP IU a n db re a k e r P ro c e s s In te rfa c eU n it (P IU )

F ib e rO p ticC a b le 2 0M H p u llin g c a b le s

2 C# 6fo rD C 4 C# 1 0fo rA C

1 6 .8M H te rm in a tio n s

2M H te rm in a tio n s

Figure 13: Process bus savings

With process bus, the physical interface for protective relays is always the same: a PIU connected to a fiber optic cable. The reductions in design and installation time for protection and control systems can therefore be immense. In this specific example, process bus provides a 60% reduction in design, installation, and commissioning of the copper wiring across the switchyard, with some additional equipment cost.

Page 11 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

Table 6: Process Inputs/Outputs and Destinations With Process Bus Wires Req. to Hardwire Alarms Wired Process Process and Input/Output Destination Control IED 1, SCADA, CT 1 4 DFR IED 2, SCADA, CT 2 DFR 4 Adjacent Zone IED 1, SCADA, CT 3 4 DFR Adjacent Zone IED 1, SCADA, CT 4 4 DFR NA Breaker TR/CL supply DC1 1 2 NA Breaker TR/CL supply DC2 2 2 NA Breaker AC1 AC supply 4 From IED 1, IED 2, SCADA, to Trip 6 DFR From IED 1, IED 2, SCADA, to Close 6 DFR To IED1, IED Breaker 52a 2, SCADA 6 To IED1, IED Breaker 52b 2, SCADA 6 Wires Req. at Wires Control Req. for House SCADA with IED Comm. Controller

challenge for process bus. The architecture should be such that the system is robust, reliable, flexible, and scalable. Most importantly, it must be intuitive to design, install, and operate. There are commercially available process bus solutions available in the marketplace. These systems, to date, have chosen to use a star (point-to-point) topology, similar to Figure 14. This allows for a simple, intuitive design, very similar to todays copper wiring. Also, such as topology is very flexible and scalable, is straightforward to install, supports zones of protection as the industry understands them, and allows simple isolation of equipment for testing, maintenance, and operational reasons.

2 2

2 4

0 Figure 14: Process bus architecture

4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 96 8 16

XII. Future directions Microprocessor relaying and digital communications have lowered total installation costs and operational costs for protection and control systems, while increasing the overall reliability. Multiple functions, including protection, control, communication, metering, and oscillography have been converged in to the microprocessor relays. The practical limit to further convergence has been the physical limitations of connecting copper wiring to each protective relaying. Process bus allows protective relays to be divorced from the physical limitations of copper wiring. One future direction that protective relaying can take is that of providing multiple zones of protection inside of one microprocessor device. Multiple input feeder protection and transformer protection relays already exist. Their practical application with copper wiring is limited, due to physical wiring challenges. However, with process bus the installation becomes simple and cost effective, as in figure 15.

Breaker Gas Alarm To SCADA Spring Alarm To SCADA Breaker To IED1, IED Maintenance 2,SCADA Trip Coil Monitor SCADA Close Coil Monitor SCADA
Total Wires Total Terminations

2 2 6 2 2 62 124

The IEC 61850 standard describes data message formats for transmitting data in the substation, including analog sampled values. However, IEC 61850 does not describe architectures for communications networks. The communications network architecture is an especial

Page 12 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

However, this is only the first step. It is simple to envision a device that provides all zones of protection and control necessary for a complete distribution substation or small transmission substation. Physical design then becomes the matter of designing the process bus system. All control functions are carried out inside this substation in a box. Design then becomes a matter of selecting the right pieces, and configuration.
Feeder Protection Relay

IED

5 2

5 2

5 2

5 2

5 2

5 2

technically proven. The important message to take away from this paper is this: there is no better time to leverage the power of microprocessor relays and digital communications than right now. The challenges facing the utility industry are well known: increasing load, aging facilities, and an aging technical workforce. The solutions recommended here are all simple suggestions that can increase the productivity of the technical workforce at little or no cost. For your specific utility, it is important to look past the tradition of designing protection and control system, and to at these solutions from a business perspective. Do these solutions really require less time to design and install? What will it take to implement them? Are they really cost effective? It is, of course, vital to ensure any solution will maintain or increase the reliability of the system. But the goal is to break system design to the most basic level. Spend your time designing the protection and control system to meet specific application requirements, not designing wiring schedules and copper terminations.

PIU

Figure 15: Multiple feeder protection with process bus

XII. Conclusion Each step in the processes discussed above has sought to further reduce wiring to as few locations as possible. Since some contacts must be wired, it would be impossible to totally eliminate the copper wire for process signals from a substation. It does leads to a protection and control rule of thumb of: wire a process value once and only once. When this rule is obeyed, all other locations that need the process value for protection or reporting purposes can receive the information from IED communications. This will speed engineering, construction, and commissioning. The second rule of thumb is: if a function does not have to be wired, then dont. In the case of alarm and status points these rules cause the status and alarm points to be wired to the IED and passed via communication to the other devices that need these process values. The if a function does not have to be wired, then dont rule leads to the use of pushbuttons for control, internal lockout relays, and process bus. Every application described in this paper is possible today. The solutions recommended here are non-proprietary, commercially, available, and

XIV. References [1] B. Kasztenny, The Myth of Complexity Configuration Mechanisms of Modern Microprocessor-Based Relays, Presented to the 56th Annual Georgia Tech Protective Relay Conference, May 1-3, 2002. [2] J. Holbach, T. Dufaure, Comparison of IEC 61850 GOOSE messages and control wiring between protection relays, Presented to the 62 Annual Georgia Tech Protective Relay conference. May 21-23, 2008. [3] D60 Line Distance Relay Instruction Manual, GE Publication GEK-113519. [4] IEC International Standard Communication networks and systems in substations - Part 92: Specific Communication Service Mapping (SCSM) Sampled values over ISO/IEC 88023, IEC Reference number IEC/TR 61850-92:2004(E), IEC, Geneva, Switzerland. [5] North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Cyber Security - Critical Cyber Asset Identification, Standard CIP-002-1 XV. Biographies Terrence Smith has been an Application Engineer with GE Digital Energy Multilin since 2008. Prior to joining GE, Terrence has been with the Tennessee Valley Authority as a Principal Engineer and MESA Associates as Program Manager. He received his Bachelor of Science in

Page 13 of 14

Fully Utilizing the IED Capability to Reduce Wiring

Engineering majoring in Electrical Engineering from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and is a professional Engineer registered in the state of Tennessee. Rich Hunt is a Market Development Leader with GE Digital Energy Multilin, responsible for IEC 61850 communications strategy. Rich has over 20 years experience in protective relaying applications. Rich earned the BSEE and MSEE degrees from Virginia Tech. He is a Senior Member of IEEE, Chair of the Systems Protection Subcommittee of the IEEE PES PSRC, and a licensed Professional Engineer.

Page 14 of 14