Cyber Infrastructure for the Power Grid

Dr. Anurag K. Srivastava, Dr. Carl Hauser, Dr. Dave Bakken

Computation Lecture 2: Data Management

Todays Content
1. Background
2. UML

3. XML
4. RDF
5. CIM (IEC 61970)

6. IEC 61850 and PMUs/WANs

Power Systems Data Formats and System

Integration
EMSs long had app-specific, proprietary file formats
Some

crude: column-oriented, fixed width, tabseparated (similar to FORTRAN)

Deregulation pushing vendors, utilities, etc from

doing own custom software and data formats
Interoperability

is key in the evolving EMS world

Problems arise
Sharing

data between different vendors/utilities SW

Sharing data even between two versions of same SW

Solution possibilities
1. Maintain multiple copies of same data in multiple
formats
2. Store the data in a format compatible with every
piece of SW

Have to remove app-specific data & lose precision

3. Store data in single, highly-detailed format and

create SW to convert to app-specific formats

4. Use highly detailed format compatible w/every app

#3 and #4 dont require separate copies but dont
lose precision

#4 is ideal solution

Data management in then grid

#4: Use highly detailed format compatible w/every
app
Requirements for this to work
1. Highly detailed model to describe the power
system
2. File format capable of storing extended data
without affecting the core data
3. Power system SW vendors and utilities adopt and
embrace the data model

CIM can do #1
XML with RDF can do #2

Todays Content
1. Background
2. UML

3. XML
4. RDF
5. CIM (IEC 61970)

6. IEC 61850 and PMUs/WANs

Unified Modeling Language (UML)

Used for modeling wide variety of SW components
Data

structures
System interactions
Use cases

Not tied to any one implementation technology:

realizeable on multiple platforms
Widely used outside the electricity sector

Standardized by the Object Management Group

(OMG), which largely does middleware

Classes
Class represents specific type of object
being modeled
Class hierarchy is an abstract model: defines
every type of component within a system as
a separate class
Very similiar to objected-oriented
programming languages: Smalltalk, C++,
Java, C#.

Each UML class can have

Its

own internal attributes

Relationships with other classes

Example circle class

Each instance has its
own copy of the data
Useful to have more
kinds of data than just
a circle!

Inheritance
Inheritance (AKA generalization) defines class and
sub-class relationships
Sub-classes

inherit attributes from parent class (and up)

Kids of classes
Concrete:

can instantiate instances

Abstract: cant instantiate instances, use as common
parent class for other classes

E.g. Shape class hierarchy (abstract class)

Circle
Triangle
Rectangle
Square
UML inheritance: clear triangle on parent side of line

Inheritance (cont.)

Association

Relationships other than parent-child are useful!

E.g., a Shape can have a Style

UML depiction: a line with role and cardinality at
each end
A

Shape has a role Style with cardinality 1

A Style has a role Shapes with cardinality 0..*

Implications: subclasses of Shape

Must

all have a Style

Different instances may share or have a different Style

( below this as in previous slides )

Aggregation
A special kind of association,
indicating one is a container of
instances of the other

UML depiction: a line with

a

clear diamond on the container end

with role & cardinality at each end

Clear diamond: If the container is

destroyed, the contained objects
still exist
Example: a Layer that contains
Shape objects and can be toggled
on and off

Composition
Specialized form of aggregation: contained object is
fundamental part of the container object
If

container destroyed then contained objects are

E.g., an Anchor class to show where a line can be
attached (anchored) on a Shape

UML depiction: filled diamond on the container end

Final example
Adding a new class, Connection, to represent the
connection between two Anchor objects
Two

associations from Connection to the same class

(Anchor)!
But different role names on each end
FromAnchor, ToAnchor
FromConnections, ToConnections

UML for Final Example

UML Discussion
In programming languages, what is the
difference between a procedure/routine and
an object?
What two things does an OO language have
that UML does not, and why?

Todays Content
1. Background
2. UML

3. XML
4. RDF
5. CIM (IEC 61970)

6. IEC 61850 and PMUs/WANs

Extensible Markup Language (XML)

Markup language (based on SGML, like HTML)
Defining

a set of rules for encoding documents/data

Both human-readable and machine-readable

Design goals: simplicity, generality, and usability

over the Internet
Element expressed as either
<tag>

contained data </tag>

<tag/>

Entry can contain attributes, either

<tag attributeOne=how attributeTwo=why/>

<tag attributeOne=how attributeTwo=why/></tag>

Above, anything in the is a child of the parent

Also, tag is NOT a keyword youre defining it!

Simple XML Example: Book

<book title=Hi author=Joe>
<rev num=2>
<year>2006</year>
<month>January</month>
<day>1</day>
</rev>
<chapter title=Preface>
<paragraph> . </paragraph>
.
</chapter>
. (another chapter)
</book>

XML Schema
XML per se has no set syntax or semantics for a tag
etc
Apps

have to know this to be able to parse and then

interpret an XML document
A schema expresses this

XML Schema Definition (XSD) defines

Elements

and attributes that may appear in a doc

Parent-child relationships
#children allowed for an element
Whether an element can include text
Data types for elements and attributes
If data items have fixed values or default values

Todays Content
1. Background
2. UML

3. XML
4. RDF
5. CIM (IEC 61970)

6. IEC 61850 and PMUs/WANs

Resource Description Framework (RDF)

XML so far only has parent-child links

RDF generalizes this

Element

can be assigned a unique ID attribute

E.g., for a book, sequel and sequelTo elements

RDF Schema (RDFS)

RDF can express relationships between resources

RDF cant define a vocabulary for them

RDF Vocabulary Description Language AKA RDFS
RDF Schema
Does

not provide vocabulary for specific resources or

classes
Does allow description of how classes and properties
should be used together
Basically provides a type system for RDF
E.g.
lib:book.title used to describe a lib:book
lib:book.sequel is an element of lib:book and refers to
another lib:book entry

Todays Content
1. Background
2. UML

3. XML
4. RDF
5. CIM (IEC 61970)

6. IEC 61850 and PMUs/WANs

CIM
Implementation-agnostic model for defining in UML
data used by electric utilities
Example: a Breaker (very common grid component)
Mechanical

switching device capable of making,

carrying, and breaking currents under normal circuit
conditions
Making, carrying for a specified time, and breaking
current under specified abnormal circuit conditions

CIM Breaker Example

IdentifiedObject: root class
PowerSystemResource: any
resource in a grid

Equipment: a physical device

(electrical or mechanical)
ConductingEquipment: carry
current or are conductively
connected to network
Switch: device that opens+closes
ProtectedSwitch: operated by
protection equipment
Breaker: also has a transit time

Subclasses of Switch

Todays Content
1. Background
2. UML

3. XML
4. RDF
5. CIM (IEC 61970)

6. IEC 61850 and PMUs/WANs

Review of IEC 61850:

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Designed for substation automation (see Prof.
Hausers slides for Segment 2)
Main features (from Wikipedia):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Data Modeling
Reporting Schemes server-client relationship which can be
triggered based on pre-defined trigger conditions.
Fast Transfer of events Generic Substation Events (GSE) GOOSE
& GSSE.
Setting Groups The setting group control Blocks (SGCB) for
config
Sampled Data Transfer
Commands Various command types to maniuplate sub. Equip.
Data Storage Substation Configuration Language (SCL) is
defined for complete storage of configured data of the substation
in a specific format.

IEC 61850: For More Info

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/61850
Great detailed slide set:
http://seclab.web.cs.illinois.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/iec61850-intro.pdf
includes some UML
WAN

issues not addressed here

The Good
HUGE benefit compared to wires in substation
Data model elegant

Substation Configuration Language (SCL) elegant

The Bad
Complexity
Far

more complex than it has to be given the problem it

is tackling
Double the size/bandwidth of IEEE C37.118 with no
extra useful info
Feels to me like a spec doc by a 1975 Mechanical
Engineer specifying HW not a 1995 (or later) SW
Engineer specifying SW

Hype
Almost

sounds like it will cure cancer at times

PJM engineer: 4 substations (ISO has ~30% of the USA

footprint)

The Bad (cont.)

Performance
Subscriber

apps have to be able to detect missing and

duplicates (no sophisticated fault-tolerant multicast)
GOOSE authentication via RSA signatures (initial version):
way too expensive for many embedded devices
UIUC paper (Jaianqing Zhang and Carl Gunter, IEEE
SmartGRidComm 2010)
WSU paper (Hauser et al paper from HICS 45 (2012))
Shared-key

multicast authentication flavor allows

subscribers to spoof a publisher
GOOSE messages very CPU-intensive with ASN.1 integer
fields etc, expensive for many embedded devices
Have to be careful that the multicast (Ethernet
broadcast) does not overload small embedded devices

The Bad (cont.)

Misc
$3K

just to read the spec

Design by Committee before Full Implementation
Way better way: IETF and OMG
David Clark, Internet pioneer (1992)
"We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and running code"
Rickard Schantz, father of middleware (mid-90s)
Any time you standardize beyond the state of the practice you
are in trouble

The Bad (cont.)

Misc (cont.)
PMUs

often need many:one (to a PDC) not 1:many

communication
Lack of a reference implementation and reference test
suite
Have to test devices pairwise
Standard so huge many vendors dont implement all of it;
most vendors violate the standard in some way

The Ugly
No tools (configuration, administration, etc) that
work across multiple vendors

WANs are very different from LANs: partial failures &

widely-varying performance (incl. network jitter)
61850 assumes the same interface for a LAN will
magically work in a WAN
Known

by distributed computing practitioners and

applied researchers to be false since <= 1990

See the A Note on Distributed Computing by Waldo et al

1994 (from reading list for this class segment)

The Ugly (cont.)

61850-90-5 is the WAN extension
Dec 2010 draft says communications redundancy is crucial
But the draft has less than one page on it (Sec 8.8) that has
no meaningful details 61850-90-5 (cont.)
IETF RFC 2991 it relies on has nothing about end-to-end
latency, availability, exploiting a more controllable utility
infrastructure, tradeoffs below, etc

Advanced

multicast is hard, fault-tolerant is harder, realtime is harder yet, with security (not ruining perf.) worse
Wide range of properties could trade off, incl. latency,
jitter, consistency, throughput, resource consumption,
availability, ...
Do implementers (or drafters) know what this space of
possible properties is, what tradeoffs their given
implementations make? Very unlikely
Do utilities/ISOs know what tradeoffs they are being
sold, and how appropriate they are for them? Unlikelier!

The Ugly (cont.)

Bottom line: a lead control engineer from a large
utility to me
2009:

No way in hell am I letting it outside my

substations
2011: (ruefully) I was overruled from above, because its
a standard.
But a standard for doing what? With what properties
traded off?

Email from that Same Utility

I have little insight into the particulars, but I've been involved in
conversations about aligning the IEC 61850 with the CIM (an elusive
goal), plus some sidebar conversations on the "immaturity" of the
standard (although its been kicking around for 10 years). I think the
underlying reason for this perception is the vendor equipmentspecific configuration tools for 61850 and how each vendor cherrypicks the standard with little regard to its impact on the overall
substation configuration problem faced by a utility.
There is a need for a vendor-agnostic toolset that mirrors the utility
engineering process for constructing (or upgrading) a substation,
and the long-term maintenance of the substation configuration. This
process goes through several hands over several years, starting with
a substation designer and ending with project engineers. The
designer typically has templates to follow for the design, necessarily
at a high level to explain (and sell) the design. The electrical
equipment vendors associated with the utility at the beginning of the
design may not be the same when the time comes to purchase
equipment. [ continued]

Email from that Same Utility (cont.)

[ continued] Thus the need for the vendor-agnostic toolset to
support the design process and "seamlessly" transition to vendorspecific 61850 implementations as purchase orders are cut. Having all
the tools CIM compliant would be a nice touch, but the two standards
are not easily made compatible. There is much work to be done to
solve the 61850 design/maintenance tool problem.

There are a lot of communication protocols in the electric grid domain,

each reflecting the needs (and IT maturity state) of the time - from
Modbus to DNP3 to 61850 to GridStat. Unfortunately a utility cannot
green-field a new grid as each new protocol is developed, it has to
ensure its deployed assets remain useful while trying to realize the
benefits offered by maturing Information and Communications
Technologies. That is a major driver behind the XYZ Advanced
Technology lab - to determine which technologies have the potential to
improve the XYZ grid's "ities" : reliability, stability, profitability, etc.