Running differential communication channels
Running differential communication channels
(OP)
What is the best place to run fiber optics for commutation between line differential relays? Is a different (secondary) form recommended for back up?






RE: Running differential communication channels
Regards
Marmite
RE: Running differential communication channels
What other forums of communications are you aware of and how do they perform? PLC was considered but in so far I am not sure where it stands.
RE: Running differential communication channels
End to end tests show that the 411L scheme can be 2-6 ms quicker for the same fault case.
RE: Running differential communication channels
I've never heard anything about DCUB that doesn't suggest it being a misop waiting to happen; why not POTT instead? Far more secure and essentially just as dependable. Everything thing I've read about DCB and DCUB suggests that POTT is far more secure.
We've done A and B different and rue every instance. Our experience is that misoperations come from setting errors or Tech errors, not equipment errors; with that history every different type of relay is simply added risk for no added gain. But if it works for you...
RE: Running differential communication channels
I knew I could count on lively comments. :) I'm merely the Commissioning Engineer, not system protection. I believe the 411/311 decision is based on SEL recommendation of different HW platform - single point of failure. These lines are 30-40 miles long.
The previous protection system was (3) sets of relays - REL-352, SEL-421 & SEL 321, with PLC and audiotone communications, and no 85CO switches. That was indeed a problem waiting to happen. Reclosing / BF is handled by a separate SEL-451 relay.
The Comm scheme is again above my pay grade and oddly not implemented in SEL logic, but in the TCF-10B logic.
In some urban areas, 411L/311L are being utilized, where each relay has a single channel via OPGW.
RE: Running differential communication channels
If I'm setting two different relays I have twice as many settings to work with as I do when I'm setting two of the same relays. If my greatest risk is a bad setting that causes an unnecessary trip I've just doubled my total risk of a misoperation. When the numeric relays were new and unproved, it may have been very prudent to take an approach of "if this one doesn't trip, hopefully that one does". But that's not the problem the industry has today. I've heard told that at one point, particularly when event analysis was far more difficult, that "well, it reclosed, so that's good" was a common attitude. Now we have PRC-004 and the requirement to analyze every operation to ferret out all of the misoperations and correct them. Security failures seem to be very low hanging fruit and, to me, the lowest of that low hanging fruit is the security risk associated with using different relays.
RE: Running differential communication channels
FWIW I deliberately used different relays from different manufactures in hopes if one did not trip for what ever reason the other would. As I get wiser I am gravitating toward identical relays from the same manufacture provided each has its own communication channel. Right now line differential protection is taking the place of nearly all primary relaying (excluding pure radial lines) both because of speed and simplicity. As is most SEL relays can also do back protection in a single package.
RE: Running differential communication channels
RE: Running differential communication channels
There is a risk with line differential only in that a failed, say bus differential relay and fault of same, can't be remotely cleared with this protection.
RE: Running differential communication channels
Our rule is if the reclosing logic, and supporting settings, are identical then both relays can reclose, but if there's any difference between the two then we have to pick one to reclose and block reclosing on the other. That's much more of a problem on distribution than it is on transmission; when we have to block reclosing we also slow down that relay so that relay that's doing reclosing will trip first and the reclosing will happen.
Back in the day, we were using the SEL-311 family on two breaker terminals (ring, 1.5 breaker) and one relay would do synch-check for one breaker and the other relay for the other breaker. Close supervision was then wired external to the relays. That got much simpler when we started using the 421 and now with the 411L.
RE: Running differential communication channels
On ring and breaker and a half, we use a different logic then for radial bus, such that on a ring we need use a breaker failure/sync-check for each breaker.
RE: Running differential communication channels
What do you mean by this?
RE: Running differential communication channels
Of course, you would typically provide either sufficient redundancy at the remote substation and CB-fail/transfer trip protection, or include overreaching distance protection as a backup.
RE: Running differential communication channels
RE: Running differential communication channels
RE: Running differential communication channels
What about your protection of your non-BES elements? Are they redundant? Do your maintenance procedures remove part of your redundant protection, when you might need them?
RE: Running differential communication channels
Everything is already redundant as is including newer non BES (BPS) facilities). Maintenance on a relay removes the redundant protection however.