See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326092276

Testing of Switchgear Operation in an IEC 61850 based SAS using a Real-Time

Simulator

Conference Paper · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 1,318

3 authors:

Dinesh Rangana Gurusinghe Sachintha Kariyawasam

RTDS Technologies Inc., Winnipeg, Canada RTDS Technologies
29 PUBLICATIONS   110 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dean Ouellette
RTDS Technologies Inc.
23 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dinesh Rangana Gurusinghe on 30 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Testing of Switchgear Operation in an IEC 61850 based SAS
using a Real-Time Simulator

Dinesh Rangana Gurusinghe*, Sachintha Kariyawasam and Dean S. Ouellette

RTDS Technologies Inc., Winnipeg, Canada
(*Corresponding author: [email protected])

ABSTRACT
IEC 61850 has become the preferred standard for substation automation for many utilities around the
world. However, its provisions to automate control systems in a substation remain a lesser-discussed
topic of the IEC 61850 standard series. Testing and validation of control systems in an electrical
substation such as high voltage switchgear controls can be a challenging task due to the unavailability
of an accurate replica test system. However, such control systems can be conveniently tested in a virtual
environment by modelling them inside a real-time simulator. This paper presents the use of a simulation
model developed with standard IEC 61850 logical node classes for representation, testing and validation
of switchgear and their associated controls in a digital substation automation system.

Keywords – IEC 61850, Substation Automation System, Switchgear, Intelligent Electronic Devices,
Logical Nodes, Interlocks, Real-Time Simulator, MMS protocol, Control model

1. INTRODUCTION

Conventionally, protection devices and control/monitoring devices are installed and operated as
separate systems in an electrical substation. The IEC 61850 series has standardized means to automate
both protection and control functionalities in a substation automation system (SAS). Implementing
protection schemes using IEC 61850 has been a well-researched area, while testing control systems in
SASs is given less attention. A conventional local control system in a substation uses copper wires to
control switchgear and make electrical interlocks. Procedure of testing such a control system is
straightforward, nonetheless performing it can be a challenging task and, typically unfeasible to be
carried out in a laboratory.

High voltage switchgear in an electrical substation operates in response to either a trip or a switch (open
and close) command. In general, only intelligent electronic devices (IEDs) dedicated for power system
protection can trip circuit breakers. Tripping of a circuit breaker is intended as a countermeasure to a
severe system disturbance such as a fault in order to preserve the healthy operation of the power system
as well as to protect equipment. Trip commands are, therefore, directly communicated to circuit breakers
and carried out with the minimum possible delay. On the other hand, a circuit breaker can be switched
as a control or an operational measure at the discretion of an operator. This can be done either locally
(at the process level) with manual control or by a command from bay, station or remote level [1]. To
grant accessibility to operators at different locations and to avoid conflicts between them, a concept
called control authority is used, which designates an operator’s right to switch a specific circuit breaker.
A prescribed set of control parameters determines where the control authority resides at a given point
of time [1]. Moreover, proper operation of switchgear in a substation depends on other functions such
as switch controlling, interlocking and synchronization as well. For example, a circuit breaker may be
associated with interlocks at component, substation, and system levels and these interlocks must not
be violated at all-times. Traditionally, all information exchange for switchgear operations in a substation
are managed via hardwired copper connections existing between respective entities [2].

1
Modern real-time power system simulators are capable of simulating entire substations and perform
closed-loop testing with multiple external IEDs using IEC 61850 communication protocols such as
generic object oriented system events (GOOSE) [3], sampled values (SV) [4] and Manufacturing
Message Specification (MMS) [3]. Real-time simulators, thus, provide means to conveniently test
advanced IEC 61850 systems [5], [6]. These tests often require circuit breakers and circuit switches in
the substation to be modelled inside the simulation case and have them interfaced with protection and
control functions of external IEDs. Hence, representing switchgear and their associated controls in the
simulation using standard data models is a key feature that an IEC 61850 test tool should possess.

The objective of this paper is to introduce real-time simulation for testing and studying of switchgear
operations, controls and electrical interlocks available in IEC 61850 based SASs. A simulation model is
developed to represent switchgear using IEC 61850 logical node classes XCBR, XSWI, CSWI and CILO
[7]. A typical substation is simulated with switchgear controls and various operation scenarios are tested
using a remote MMS client. The MMS client can represent several control originators to emulate different
control levels present in a SAS. The substation is modelled in the simulation in such a way that various
types of interlocks can be taken into consideration in testing. In addition, the real-time simulator has the
capability to automate a number of switchgear operations through its scripting feature [7], which is used
to automate test plans.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, switchgear controls models, control
parameters and control authorities defined in IEC 61850 are briefly described. Implementation details
of the simulation model for switchgear are discussed in Section 3. The arrangement of the test setup
and details of a typical substation used as an example are provided in Section 4. Section 5 is devoted
to results and discussion; it describes functional testing, switchgear control system testing and
advantages of the proposed approach. Section 6 follows with the conclusion, where the key
contributions of the paper are highlighted.

2. SWITCHGEAR REPRESENTATION AND CONTROLS IN IEC 61850

IEC 61850-7-4 has defined logical node classes for representing switchgear such as circuit breakers
(XCBR) and circuit switches (XSWI) as well as for switch controllers (CSWI) and interlocking function
(CILO) [8]. A brief description of each logical node (LN) class is given in Table I.
Table I: IEC 61850 logical node classes for switchgear and their associated control functions [1]

Logical Node Class

Description
(IEC 61850-7-4)

XCBR Circuit Breakers - Switches with short circuit breaking capability

XSWI Circuit Switches - Switches without short circuit breaking capability

CSWI Switch Controller - Control all switching conditions above process level

Interlocking Function - Enable a switching operation if interlocking conditions are

CILO
fulfilled

Fig. 1 illustrates an example of information flow between the LNs associated with switchgear operations
in a typical SAS [9]. The XCBR LN instance (representing a circuit breaker) resides in the process level
(equipment level) and CSWI and CILO LN instances (representing, respectively the switch controller
and the interlocking functions of that beaker) are in bay level. The XCBR LN instance can be assessed
and controlled through the CSWI by a remote client. In this case, a remote MMS client at station level is

2
shown controlling with the process level circuit breaker via the switch controller at bay level. Here, it is
assumed that the IED carrying the switch controller has MMS server functionality. By their very nature,
the LN instances XCBR, CSWI and CILO are interconnected with each other. The switch controller takes
control inputs to determine the standing of control authority for that particular switch. Furthermore, the
CILO LN instance typically takes external inputs to determine the status of the interlock. Also, note that
the XCBR exchanges information such as trip signals and circuit breaker statuses with bay level
protection IEDs independently from switch controlling function.

Station Level Control Bay Level Control Process Level

Int erlock Interface with
Lo gic Switchgear
Int erlocking
CILO

MMS Switch
IHMI CSWI XCBR
Switch Circuit
Control Control Breaker
Inputs

Bay Level Protection

CB Status
PYYY

PXXX

Trip
PTRC
Trip Conditioning

Fig. 1 Information flow between logical nodes associated with switchgear operations in a SAS

2.1. Control Models in IEC 61850

In order to facilitate control functionalities IEC 61850 has introduced a concept called the control model,
which provides a predefined way for a client to change the state of internal and external processes of a
controllable entity. As per IEC 61850-7-2, an external client is capable of changing the state of data
object instances of controllable common data classes (CDC) with the “ctlModel” data attribute not set to
“status-only” [10].

As different applications require different control behaviours, the standard defines four control model
types as;
 Direct control with normal security
 Select Before Operate (SBO) control with normal security
 Direct control with enhanced security
 SBO control with enhanced security

“Direct” control models allow a client to operate the control object from a single command. This does
not prevent multiple clients from trying to perform conflicting control actions. “Select before operate”
models, on the other hand, require a client to “select or reserve” the control object prior to operation.
Then, it is the only one allowed to perform control actions on the object for a period of time. “Enhanced
security” provides an additional supervision of the status value by the control object at the end of the
command sequence (the “CommandTermination” message). “Normal security” provides no such
additional supervision.

3
Operating a control object (for example a switch controller) in a data model can only be performed by a
command from an operator (an entity referred to as the originator in the standard) that holds the control
authority for that object. Originator category (or orCat) indicates type/location of the operator that has
sent the request to control the object. The originator categories defined in the standard are shown in
Table II. For the purpose of switchgear controls, this work focuses on three originator categories only,
which are bay-control, station-control and remote-control.
Table II: Originator Categories (orCat) defined in IEC 61850-7-3 [8]

Originator Category
Description
(orCat)

not-supported Value shall not be used

bay-control Control operation issued from an operator using a client located at bay level

station-control Control operation issued from an operator using a client located at station level

remote-control Control operation from a remote operator outside the substation

automatic-bay Control operation issued from an automatic function at bay level

automatic-station Control operation issued from an automatic function at station level

automatic-remote Control operation issued from an automatic function outside of the substation

maintenance Control operation issued from a maintenance/service tool

process Status change occurred without control action

2.2. Switchgear Control Parameters and Control Authority

An originator’s right to possess the control authority for a particular switch depends on a prescribed set
of control parameters as defined in Annex B of IEC 61850-7-4 [1] and are shown in Table III.
Table III: Control parameters governing the control authority for switch operation

Control Parameter Description

Represents the status of an actual switch at the process and allows taking over the
XCBR/XSWI.Loc
manual control authority

LLNO.MltLev Enables for more than one originator to hold control authority at the same time

CSWI.Loc Represents the control behaviour of the logical node (bay level)

CSWI.LocSta Represents the switching authority at station level

Note that the four parameters above are defined for each controllable circuit switch. Combination of
values of those control parameters determine where the control authority resides for that particular circuit
switch. The relationship between control parameters and control authority is illustrated in Table IV as
per Annex B of IEC 61850-7-4 [1].

4
 Table IV: Relationship between control parameters and Control authority as per Annex B of IEC 61850-7-4

Control Parameters Control Authority at each Level

Switch Bay Control Manual Control Originator Category (OrCat)

XCBR.Loc
LLNO.MltLev CSWI.Loc CSWI.LocSta Process Bay Station Remote
XSWI.Loc

MMS

GOOSE
Not Not MMS
Stat io n
IEC 61 850 Load
Applicable Applicable Merging
Unit
SV Protection & Controls Dispatch
Control MMS Centre

True False Always Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed

MMS

GOOSE
Not MMS
Stat io n
IEC 61 850 Load
Applicable Merging
Unit
SV Protection & Controls Dispatch
Control MMS Centre

False False True Always Allowed Always Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed

MMS

GOOSE
MMS
IEC 61 850 Stat io n Load
Merging SV Protection & Controls Dispatch
Unit
Control MMS Centre

False False False True Always Allowed Not Allowed Always Allowed Not Allowed

MMS

GOOSE
MMS
IEC 61 850 Stat io n Load
Merging SV Protection & Controls Dispatch
Unit
Control MMS Centre

False False False False Always Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Always Allowed

MMS

GOOSE
Not Not MMS
Stat io n
IEC 61 850 Load
Applicable Applicable Merging
Unit
SV Protection & Controls Dispatch
Control MMS Centre

True True Always Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed

MMS

GOOSE
Not MMS
Stat io n
IEC 61 850 Load
Applicable Merging
Unit
SV Protection & Controls Dispatch
Control MMS Centre

False True True Always Allowed Always Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed

MMS

GOOSE
MMS
IEC 61 850 Stat io n Load
Merging SV Protection & Controls Dispatch
Unit
Control MMS Centre

False True False True Always Allowed Always Allowed Always Allowed Not Allowed

MMS

GOOSE
MMS
IEC 61 850 Stat io n Load
Merging SV Protection & Controls Dispatch
Unit
Control MMS Centre

False True False False Always Allowed Always Allowed Always Allowed Always Allowed

5
3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SIMULATION MODEL

This section presents the development of a simulation model for IEC 61850 representation of switchgear
in a real-time power system simulator. This implementation is based on an entity called a switch object,
which is a combination of three LN instances, one each from XCBR (or XSWI), CSWI and CILO.
Information flow between these LN instances are internal to the model. A switch object takes the control
parameters described in Section 2.2 and an interlock logic as inputs. A particular switch object can be
mapped to a desired circuit switch in the simulation for control operations. A remote client can access
the switch object for control purposes using the MMS protocol. Binding of external trip signals (published
as GOOSE messages) to the corresponding circuit breaker is achieved using a generic input (GGIO LN
instance), and done independently from the switch object. Fig. 2 depicts the Information flow between
logical nodes associated with switchgear operations in the simulation model.

Switch Object
Station Level Control Bay Level Control Process Level
Int erlock
Interface with
Control
Input Switchgear
Int erlocking
CILO

MMS Switch
IHMI CSWI XCBR
Switch Circuit
Control Breaker
Control
Parameters

GGIO
Simulator

Bay Level Protection

CB Status
PYYY

PXXX

Trip
PTRC
Trip Conditioning

Fig. 2 Information flow between logical nodes associated with switchgear operations in the simulation model, the
switch object and its internal connections

The network interface card (NIC) of the simulator is interfacing all communication with external IEDs to
the simulation. Together with certain other components in the simulation, it is mimicking an IEC 61850
compliant IED. Switch objects can be created as a part of configuring the data model of this “virtual IED”,
using its IED configurator tool. Control model type is chosen when the switch objects are first created.
All four standard types of control models are supported with an additional and non-controllable “status-
only” option. Type of the switch (XCBR or XSWI) is also selected at this point. All three LN instances
(XCBR/XSWI, CSWI, CILO) of the switch object are created simultaneously in the data model and
remain locally interlinked. Switch objects with all of their related LN instances exist in a dedicated Logical
Device (LD) in the data model. Furthermore, the LD carrying the switch objects has a dataset each for
MMS (reports) and GOOSE communication. There, the information given in Table V are available for
each switch object created in the data model.

Notice that a switch object in the simulation exists independently from the circuit switch, control
parameters and interlock inputs it is linked to, regardless of them originating from inside the simulation
or elsewhere. This enables, for example, a switch object to be connected to an external circuit breaker
and to other external inputs, if the user so wishes.

6
 Table V: Available information in the MMS and GOOSE datasets for a single switch object

Data Attribute Description Data Model

MMS Dataset
Logical Device CSWI_XCBR

Status value of the switch (controller), LLN0

CSWI.Pos.StVal this should reflect the status of the MMS (Report) Dataset
linked circuit switch GOOSE Dataset

CSWI.Loc.StVal Local (Bay level) control behavior

LPHD

CSWI.LocSta.StVal Control authority at station level Object1 CSWI1

Pos (Controllable)
Interlock signal for enabling the switch Loc
CILO.EnaOpn.StVal
open operation LocSta

Object1 XCBR1
Interlock signal for enabling the switch
CILO.EnaCls.StVal Pos
close operation OpCnt

XCBR/XSWI.Pos.StVal Status value of the switch position Object1 CILO1

EnaOpn
XCBR/XSWI.OpCnt.StVal Operation counter of the switch EnaCls
Switch Object 1

GOOSE Dataset Object2 CSWI2

Object2 XCBR2
XCBR/XSWI.Pos.StVal Status value of the switch position Object2 CILO2

Switch Object 2
XCBR/XSWI.Pos.q Quality of the switch position

IEC 61850 data model of the LD carrying the switch objects is depicted in the third column of Table V.
Here, the hierarchy of the data model is shown from logical device level to data object level only. Two
switch objects with corresponding logical nodes are also highlighted. Note that the data object
“CSWI.Pos” (representing the controller switch) is an instance of a controllable common data class
(controllable double point - DPC). The control model (cltModel) chosen at the instantiation of the switch
object is in fact that of the CSWI.Pos data object. Remote MMS clients are accessing and controlling
this data object within the capabilities of its control model, when performing control operations on the
corresponding switch.

As far as switchgear representation is considered, the IED in the simulator acts as a MMS server as
well as a GOOSE publisher. Its MMS server capabilities enable remote clients to access, monitor and
control switch objects. On the other hand, publication of switch positions (XCBR.Pos.StVal) as GOOSE
messages supports protection schemes such as auto-recloser and breaker failure as well as enables
status monitoring in external IEDs. The developed model is tested and validated by using it in detailed
simulation cases with both MMS and GOOSE communication interfaces. The next section demonstrates
the use of the developed switchgear model in testing and validation of controls systems in a substation.

7
4. TEST SETUP AND EXAMPLE CASE

All IEC 61850 communication interfacing to the simulation requires a NIC to be connected to the real-
time simulator and have it configured. Schematic of a typical setup showing connections between
devices is presented in Fig. 3. Here, the main processors of the simulator run the modelled electrical
substation, including its circuit switches. The NIC, together with the GSE component, facilitates a
communication interface between the main simulation and external IEDs.

Ethernet local area network (LAN) ports of the NIC physically connect the simulator to external IEDs
through the communication network. Notice that both GOOSE (Ethernet) and MMS (TCP/IP) traffic use
the same physical communication link of the NIC, despite Fig. 3 depicting the two separately for clarity.
A remote MMS client connects with the MMS server running on the NIC to access and control switch
objects, and thereby to operate circuit switches in the simulated electrical system. GOOSE
communication between the simulator and external IEDs occurs according to the well-known GOOSE
publisher-subscriber mechanism. In contrast, the MMS protocol has a TCP/IP based client-server
architecture.

Remote MMS Client MMS

(MMS Voyageur)

External IED

GOOSE GOOSE
Publisher/Subscriber

External IED

Control
Parameters
Network

Internal Switch control GTNET GSE

Logic Component

Power System Model

GOOSE
Network Interface card
MMS (Ethernet)
(GTNET Card)
(TCP/IP)
Real Time Simulator

Fig. 3 Schematic of connection setup between devices

The next section demonstrates the use of the developed switchgear model in testing and validation of
control systems in a substation. A typical substation arrangement is used in the example case to
demonstrate switchgear controls under various operational scenarios. Substation topology used in the
example case is shown in Fig. 4. It comprises of two 230 kV incoming feeders, two 31.5 MVA, 230/33
kV, Y-Δ transformers, and four 33 kV distribution feeders. This substation has 29 circuit switches in total
as shown in Fig. 4, including 11 circuit breakers (XCBR), 16 isolators (XSWI) and 2 earth switches
(XSWI). All circuit switches in the simulated substation are represented in the data model (of the IED in
the simulator) using switch objects. This requires 29 switch objects in the data model. Appendix A
provides the switchgear interlocks of the substation used in the example case. Control parameters
described in Section 2.2 are dynamically set in the simulation using internal signals and fed into the
switch objects as inputs.

8
 Tx. Line 1 Tx. Line 2

230/0.115 230/0.115

VT1 VT2
CT1 CT2
600/5 600/5

ES1 ES2

DS1 DS3

CB1 CB2

DS2 DS4

230/0.115 230 kV

DS5 VT3 DS7

CB3 CB4

DS6 DS8

600/5 600/5
CT3 CT4

T/f 1 T/f 2
31.5 MVA 31.5 MVA
230/33 kV 230/33 kV

33/0.115 33/0.115

VT4 VT5
CT5 CT6
2000/5 2000/5

CB5 CB6

DS9 DS10
Bus Section
33 kV
DS15 CB11 DS16

DS11 DS12 DS13 DS14

CB7 CB8 CB9 CB10

CT7 CT8 CT9 CT10

600/5 600/5 600/5 600/5

Feeder 1 Feeder 2 Feeder 3 Feeder 4

Fig. 4 Single line diagram of the substation used in the example case

9
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Testing carried out in this work was two-fold. In the first phase, functional aspects of the developed
simulation model were extensively tested to confirm its correct operation and performance. The next
phase was intended to test it in an application environment, where switch objects were incorporated into
a simulation case to evaluate their performance under realistic scenarios.

The data models of simulated switch objects were accessed, monitored and controlled by a MMS client.
A MMS client program available in the interface software of the real-time simulator was used as the
MMS client for testing in this work [11]. However, any correctly configured MMS client can connect to
the MMS server of the simulation model. This MMS client program can test the connection setup with
the server device, browse the data model of the server device, read and write server data and perform
control operations. In this paper, the focus is only on performing control operations on the server device.
In addition, it has a capability to emulate different originator categories and command service types. As
discussed before, only three originator categories that are commonly seen in a substation environment
were tested in this research.

5.1. Functional Testing of the Developed Model

Annex B of IEC 61850-7-4 [1] provides eight different scenarios, where the combination of control
parameter values determine the obtainability of control authority for each level. A switch can receive
control commands from either bay, station or remote level controls (process level control is omitted as
it bypasses the bay level switch controller, i.e. CSWI). Therefore, a switch object needs to be tested
from all three levels for a single set of control parameters. This requires 24 switch operations (48 if both
open and close operations are considered) to be performed. In addition, there are three possibilities for
the interlock check; interlock check bypassed, interlocks checked but violated and interlocks checked
and satisfied. Each of these requires a dedicated round of testing (48 operations each), which produces
a total of 144 test switching operations per switch object.

Notice that a particular switch object has a chosen control model; hence, the abovementioned test
procedure must be applied to confirm the correct functionality of all four control models. A
comprehensive testing of the simulation model as explained above was carried out covering all aspects
of its functionality. This required 576 (144x4) operations in total. In addition, a separate set of tests were
carried out to verify the intended operation of each control model according to their state machines as
defined in IEC 61850-7-2 [10]. These included numerous tests such as checks for timeouts, sequence
of operation, appropriate AddCause etc.

Since a large number of cases were required to be tested, scripting feature of the real-time simulator
was used to automate the testing of the simulation model [7]. This facilitated convenient and effective
testing with minimal interaction. The simulated switchgear model performed as intended in each switch
operation. Therefore, functional testing ensured that of the developed simulation model for switchgear
operated in correct order under all possible control conditions.

5.2. Testing of Switchgear Control System

The example substation described in Section 4 was simulated in the real-time simulator with switch
objects instantiated for each circuit switch. The control model for switch objects selected was “SBO with
enhanced security”. Operation of each switch object was tested according to a test plan developed by
the authors considering practical consideration in a SAS. A sample test plan for CB1 is provided in
Appendix B and similar a test plan was used to test other switch objects.

10
All switching operations of the example substation exhibited expected performances. Appendix B also
shows test results for switching operations of CB1. Similar performances were observed for other switch
objects. This guaranteed that the switchgear controls of the example substation were operating as
expected under selected scenarios.

5.3. Discussion

The previous phases of testing demonstrated the validation of switchgear associated control functions
(above process level) in a SAS. Although the testing was performed using a PC based MMS client
program, the testing procedure presented in this work can be applied to test a control system of a real
SAS. The simulation model presented in this paper helps providing an appropriate testing environment
for real switch controllers (operators) in a SAS to be tested, individually as well as a group. Real
controllers can interface with switch objects in the simulation in a similar manner as explained above.
Testing and verification of the electrical interlocks in the SAS is another advantage for the users.

This approach of testing can be taken into a more sophisticated level by interfacing switch objects
simulated with actual circuit breakers via hardwired I/O connections of the simulator. This provides an
IED functionality to conventional circuit breakers (for testing purposes), which a majority of them
currently in the field do not have. Furthermore, if a user desires to have a circuit breaker under test
integrated into the simulated circuit, a breaker model can be used as a replica to represent the real
circuit breaker. Here, the breaker model in the simulation can be made to operate according to the status
of the real circuit breaker by using proper I/O interfacing. This approach even allows taking signals
external to the simulator as inputs into the switch object (such as interlock inputs) for a particular breaker.

Ultimately, switchgear controls are incorporated into the coordinated operation of the entire SAS,
including both protection and control systems. Certain circumstances in a substation demand both
protection and control operations, hence proper coordination among them is a necessity. In addition,
both control and protection functions in a digital SAS may share the same communication network and
often some engineering configurations (such as the SCD file) as well. Therefore, testing a digital SAS
(with both protection and control systems in place) as an integrated system with the maximum interfacing
of real IEDs is the best method available for verification of functionality, configurations and coordinated
operation of IEDs.

6. CONCLUSION

This paper has presented the development of a simulation model to represent high voltage circuit
switches in a SAS using IEC 61850 models. Basic concepts of the IEC 61850 standard series related
to switchgear modelling are introduced in order to lay the groundwork for subsequent discussions on
implementation of the simulation model. Then, a detailed description is provided on implementation of
the simulation model and the comprehensive test setup developed for testing is also explained. The
results section explains the procedures employed for testing and validation of the developed model as
well as its application in a test setup for testing of switchgear controls with a summary of results.

The work presented in this paper highlights numerous benefits of using a simulation model for
representing high voltage circuit switches for testing of switchgear controls in a SAS. Appendices A and
B provide the existing electrical interlocks and the test plan used in testing switchgear controls of the
simulated SAS.

11
7. APPENDIX A – INTERLOCKS

Interlocks of the substation used in the example case are provided in Table VI. Interlocks of symmetrical
bays are not shown as they are identical.
Table VI: Interlocks of the substation used in the example case

Interlock
Switchgear
Bay Type
Object
Open Close

CB1 -- DS1 DS2

DS1
CB1 CB1 ES1

Tx. Line 1
DS2
CB1 CB1

ES1 -- DS1 Remote

CB

CB1
CB3 -- DS5 DS6 CB11

CB2

T/f 1 - HV
DS5
CB3 CB3

DS6
CB3 CB3

CB5 -- DS9
T/f 1 - LV

DS9
CB5 CB5

CB7 -- DS11
Feeder 1

DS11
CB7 CB7

CB11
CB3 CB4 CB5 CB6 DS15 DS16

Bus Section DS15

CB11 CB11

DS16
CB11 CB11

12
8. APPENDIX B – SAMPLE TEST PLAN

A sample test plan prepared for the circuit breaker of an incoming feeder (Tx. Line 1) with test results
are given below. The control model of the switch object selected is “SBO control with enhanced security”

Test Plan - Tx. Line 1 : CB1

A. Operation with Single Level Control Authority

A.1 Operate CB1 from Process Level Control
1. Operate CB1 from the process level control
a. Set XCBR.Loc = True, LLN0.MltLev = False, CSWI.Loc = False and CSWI.LocSta = False
b. Open/close CB1
Intended operation: CB1 will operate √ Satisfied √ Unsatisfied

Comments:
CB1 operates as it is always allowed to operate switches from the process level control.

A.2 Operate CB1 from Bay Level Control

2. Operate CB1 from the bay level control without control authority
a. Set XCBR.Loc = True, LLN0.MltLev = False, CSWI.Loc = False and CSWI.LocSta = False
b. Open DS1, DS2 and CB1and close ES1 (from process level)
c. Set the originator category to “bay-control”
d. Select the switch object with value “close”
Intended operation: CB1 will NOT be selected (or operated); the
response from the CB1 control model should indicate the “lack of √ Satisfied √ Unsatisfied
access authority”.
Comments:
CB1 did not respond positively for the select command, as the switch is NOT allowed to be operated from the bay level
control.

3. Operate CB1 from the bay level control with control authority; with interlocks unchecked
a. Set XCBR.Loc = False, LLN0.MltLev = False, CSWI.Loc = True and CSWI.LocSta = False
b. Open DS1, DS2, CB1 and ES1 (from process level)
c. Set the originator category to “bay-control”
d. Disable interlock check
e. Operate the switch
Intended operation: CB1 will NOT operate; the response from the CB1
control model should indicate the “Object not being selected”.
√ Satisfied √ Unsatisfied

f. Select the switch object with value “close”

Intended operation: CB1 responds positively to the select command. √ Satisfied √ Unsatisfied

g. Wait until deselect timer expires and then operate

Intended operation: CB1 will NOT operate; the response from the CB1
control model should indicate the “Expiration of the timer”.
√ Satisfied √ Unsatisfied

h. Select the switch object with value “close”

i. Operate before the deselect timer timeout
j. Check the command termination
Intended operation: CB1 responds positively to both select command
and operate command; CB1 completes the operation and sends a √ Satisfied √ Unsatisfied
positive “commandTermination” to the client.
Comments:
CB1 operates as the switch is allowed to be operated from the bay level control and the interlock condition are unchecked.

13
4. Repeat test 3 by setting XCBR.Loc = False, LLN0.MltLev = False, CSWI.Loc = True, CSWI.LocSta = False and the switch object
value to “open”
Note: - CB1 operated as intended. However, test results are not provided to limit the length of the paper.

5. Operate CB1 from the bay level control with control authority; with interlocks checked and violated
a. Set XCBR.Loc = False, LLN0.MltLev = False, CSWI.Loc = True and CSWI.LocSta = False
b. Open DS1, DS2, CB1 and ES1 (from process level)
c. Set the originator category to “bay-control”
d. Enable interlock check
e. Select the switch object with value “close”
Intended operation: CB1 responds positively to the select command. √ Satisfied √ Unsatisfied

f. Operate within the allowed period of time

Intended operation: CB1 must NOT operate. The response to the
operate command from the CB1 control model should indicate the √ Satisfied √ Unsatisfied
“violation of interlocking”.
Comments:
CB1 is selected but did not operate as the interlock conditions are VIOLATED.

6. Operate CB1 from the bay level control with control authority; with interlocks checked and satisfied
a. Set XCBR.Loc = False, LLN0.MltLev = False, CSWI.Loc = True and CSWI.LocSta = False
b. Close DS1 and DS2 and open CB1 and ES1 (from process level)
c. Set the originator category to “bay-control”
d. Enable interlock check
e. Select the switch object with value “close”
f. Operate within the allowed period of time
g. Check the command termination
Intended operation: CB1 responds positively to both select command
and operate commands; CB1 completes the operation and sends a √ Satisfied √ Unsatisfied
positive commandTermination to the client.
Comments:
CB1 closes as the switch is allowed to be operated from the bay level control and the interlock condition are satisfied.

7. Repeat test 6 by setting XCBR.Loc = False, LLN0.MltLev = False, CSWI.Loc = True, CSWI.LocSta = False and the switch object
value to “open”
Note: - CB1 operated as intended. However, test results are not provided to limit the length of the paper.

A.3 Operate CB1 from Station Level Control

8. Station level operation
a. Repeat test 2 by setting XCBR.Loc = True, LLN0.MltLev = False, CSWI.Loc = False and CSWI.LocSta = False and the
originator category to “station-control”
b. Repeat tests 3-7 by setting XCBR.Loc = False, LLN0.MltLev = False, CSWI.Loc = False and CSWI.LocSta = True and the
originator category to “station-control”
Note: - CB1 operated as intended. However, test results are not provided to limit the length of the paper.

A.4 Operate CB1 from Remote Level Control

9. Remote level operation
c. Repeat test 2 by setting XCBR.Loc = True, LLN0.MltLev = False, CSWI.Loc = False and CSWI.LocSta = False and the
originator category to “remote-control”
d. Repeat tests 3-7 by setting XCBR.Loc = False, LLN0.MltLev = False, CSWI.Loc = False and CSWI.LocSta = False and the
originator category to “remote-control”
Note: - CB1 operated as indented. However, test results are not provided to limit the length of the paper.

14
B. Operation with Multiple Level Control Authority
B.1 Operate CB1 from Bay, Station and Remote Level Control
10. Operate CB1 from the bay, station and remote level control with control authority is ONLY granted to bay and station levels.
a. Set XCBR.Loc = False, LLN0.MltLev = True, CSWI.Loc = False and CSWI.LocSta = True
b. Close DS1 and DS2 and open CB1 and ES1 (from process level)
c. Set the originator category to “bay-control”
d. Select the switch object with value “close”
e. Operate within the allowed period of time
Intended operation: CB1 responds positively to both select command
and operate commands; CB1 completes the operation and sends a √ Satisfied √ Unsatisfied
positive commandTermination to the client.
f. Set the originator category to “station-control”
g. Select the switch object with value “open”
h. Operate within the allowed period of time
Intended operation: CB1 responds positively to both select command
and operate commands; CB1 completes the operation and sends a √ Satisfied √ Unsatisfied
positive commandTermination to the client.
i. Set the originator category to “remote-control”
j. Select the switch object with value “close”
k. Operate within the allowed period of time
Intended operation: CB1 will NOT be selected (or operated); the
response from the CB1 control model should indicate the “lack of √ Satisfied √ Unsatisfied
access authority”.
Comments:
Only bay and station levels have the control authority, hence allowed to operate.

11. Operate CB1 from the bay, station and remote level control with control authority is granted to all control levels.
a. Repeat test 10 by setting XCBR.Loc = False, LLN0.MltLev = True, CSWI.Loc = False and CSWI.LocSta = False
Note: - CB1 operated from all levels as intended. However, test results are not provided to limit the length of the paper.

15
 9. REFERENCES

[1] Communication networks and systems for power utility automation – Part 7-4: Basic communication
structure – Compatible logical node classes and data object classes, IEC 61850-7-4, Ed. 2, Mar.
2010.
[2] P. Dhakal, “Computer aided design of substation switching schemes,” Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of
Electrical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, Oct. 2000.
[3] Communication networks and systems for power utility automation – Part 8-1: Specific
communication service mapping (SCSM) – Mappings to MMS (ISO 9506-1 and ISO 9506-2) and
to ISO/IEC 8802-3, IEC 61850-8-1, Ed. 2, June 2011.
[4] Communication networks and systems in substations – Part 9-2: Specific Communication System
Mapping (SCSM) – Sampled values over ISO/IEC 8802-3, IEC 61850-9-2, Ed. 2, Sep. 2011.
[5] R. Kuffel, D. Ouellette, and P. Forsyth "Real time simulation and testing using IEC 61850" in Proc.
International Symposium of Modern Electric Power Systems, Wroclaw, Poland, Sep. 2010, pp. 1-
8.
[6] D. R. Gurusinghe, S. Kariyawasam and D. S. Ouellette, " Testing of IEC 61850 sampled values
based digital substation automation systems," in Proc. 14th International Conference on
Development in Power System Protection 2018 (DPSP), Belfast, United Kingdom, Mar. 2018, pp.,
pp. 1-6.
[7] RSCAD Tutorial Manual, RTDS Technologies Inc., Winnipeg, MB, Canada, July 2017, pp. 7.1-7.16.
[8] Communication networks and systems for power utility automation – Part 7-3: Basic communication
structure – Common data classes, IEC 61850-7-3, Ed. 2, Dec. 2010.
[9] Communication networks and systems for power utility automation –Part 7-1: Basic communication
structure – Principles and models, IEC 61850-7-1, Ed. 2, Jul 2011.
[10] Communication networks and systems for power utility automation – Part 7-2: Basic information
and communication structure – Abstract communication service interface (ACSI), IEC 61850-7-2,
Ed. 2, Aug. 2010.
[11] 61850 MMS Voyageur, RTDS Technologies Inc., Winnipeg, MB, Canada, Feb. 2018.

16

View publication stats