1 / 73

Smart Grid ad hoc Meeting Information - March 2010

Smart Grid ad hoc Meeting Information - March 2010. Authors:. Date: 2010-3-16. Name. Company. Address. Phone. email. 5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, 95054. +1 (321) 427-4098. bkraemer@. marvell. .com. Bruce Kraemer. Marvell.

vera-turner
Download Presentation

Smart Grid ad hoc Meeting Information - March 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Smart Grid ad hoc Meeting Information - March 2010 Authors: Date: 2010-3-16 Name Company Address Phone email 5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, 95054 +1 (321)427-4098 bkraemer@ marvell .com Bruce Kraemer Marvell Abstract: Information on Smart Grid of interest to WG11 – March 2010 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  2. Introduction • Ad Hoc Committee rules • No call foressential patents • AHC,  is a "committee of the whole" of the WG - i.e. any WG member can contribute; in practice, anybody who turns up can speak • During f2f meetings,  you can hold formal votes of only the voting members of 802.11; on a telecon you can take straw polls,  but not formal votes • Required notices • Affiliation FAQ - http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html • Anti-Trust FAQ - http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf • Ethics - http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/about/CoE_poster.pdf • IEEE 802.11 Working Group Policies and Procedures - https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/public-file/07/11-07-0360-04-0000-802-11-policies-and-procedures.doc Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  3. Introduction • Request for recording secretary • Request for ad hoc chair Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  4. Agenda Topics - Tuesday Planned topics: • National Broadband plan – first pass • An update on the sub 1GHz project plan (Dave Halasz) • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-0204-01-0wng-commentsonsub1ghz.ppt 3. Results and action items for NIST PAP#2 modeling • http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/PAP2modeling.ppt 4. Thursday meeting and call topics Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  5. Agenda Topics - Thursday Planned topics: • National Broadband plan – second pass • Update on SGIP – Mark Klerer 3. Results and action items for NIST PAP#2 modeling • http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/PAP2modeling.ppt 4. Subsequent conference calls and plans for May meeting Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  6. New Broadband Plan • Recommendations • Integrate broadband into the Smart Grid • ➤ As outlined in Chapter 16, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should start a proceeding to explore the reliability and resiliency of commercial broadband communications networks. • ➤ States should reduce impediments and financial disincentives to using commercial service providers for Smart Grid communications. • ➤The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) should clarify its Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) security requirements. • ➤Congress should consider amending the Communications Act to enable utilities to use the proposed public safety 700 MHz wireless broadband network. • ➤The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the FCC should continue their joint efforts to identify new uses for federal spectrum and should consider the requirements of the Smart Grid. • ➤The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in collaboration with the FCC, should study the communications requirements of electric utilities to inform federal Smart Grid policy. http://download.broadband.gov/plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  7. Broadband Plan Recommendation 12.4 • Recommendation 12.4: • Congress should consider amending the Communications Act to enable utilities to use the proposed public safety 700MHz wireless broadband network. • The wide-area network requirements of utilities are very similar to those of public safety agencies. Both require near universal coverage and a resilient and redundant network, especially during emergencies. In a natural disaster or terrorist attack, clearing downed power lines, fixing natural gas leaks and getting power back to hospitals, transportation hubs, water treatment plants and homes are fundamental to protecting lives and property. Once deployed, a smarter grid and broadband-connected utility crews will greatly enhance the effectiveness of these activities. • Congress should consider amending the Communications Act to enable utilities to use the public safety wireless broadband network in the 700MHz band, subordinated to the communications of Section 337-defined public safety services. Jurisdictions that are licensees or lessees of the public safety 700MHz broadband spectrum should be allowed to enter into agreements with utilities on uses and priorities. At the sole discretion of the public safety licensee, utilities should also be able to purchase services on a public safety network, contribute capital funds and infrastructure or even be the operator of a joint network. These statutory changes should create more options for the construction and operation of a public safety wireless broadband network. Although the network will take years to build, carrying critical traffic from multiple users can help lower costs for all. http://download.broadband.gov/plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  8. Broadband Plan Recommendation 12.6 • Recommendation 12.6: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE ), in collaboration with the FCC , should study the communications requirements of electric utilities to inform Federal Smart Grid policy. • Understanding the evolving communications requirements of electric utilities will help DOE develop informed Smart Grid policies for the nation. As an input to this plan, the FCC solicited public comment on Smart Grid technologies, and a number of utilities filed detailed responses. However, many utilities declined to comment, and others understandably declined to reveal confidential or sensitive information in public filings. • DOE, in collaboration with the FCC, should conduct a thorough study of the communications requirements of electric utilities, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Smart Grid. Building upon the FCC’s recent efforts, DOE should collect data about utilities’ current and projected communications requirements, as well as the types of networks and communications services they use. http://download.broadband.gov/plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  9. This week Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  10. SGIP Event Schedule Plenary Officers • Chair: Steve Widergren • Vice Chair: Mark Klerer • Secretary: Paul Molitor Upcoming Meeting Details • April 23: SGIP Virtual Meeting • May 24-27: 2nd SGIP Face-to-Face in Santa Clara, CA. Held in conjunction with ConnectivityWeek. • July 23: SGIP Virtual Meeting • Sept. 17: SGIP Virtual Meeting • Oct. 29: SGIP Virtual Meeting • Nov. 30-Dec. 3: 3rd SGIP Face-to-Face in Chicago, IL. Held in conjunction with Grid-Interop Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  11. Tough Questions • What are the consequences of not responding to the request? • How much effort, from whom, how quickly needs to be contributed to meet the request? • Could the June deadline for task completion be extended? • How will the data provided to NIST be used by other entities in influencing deployment decisions? • “Entities” range from FERC to consumer appliances • Can simulation models be useful enough without selecting and constructing channel models? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  12. Working Assumptions • The ongoing interchange of information between power engineering and communications industry is essential. • Computer modeling communications against PE supplied uses cases is far more useful than hand waving. • Although not fully understood or quantified, there will be business incentives to being recognized as a qualified Smart Grid technology. • Although not fully understood, industry would prefer to be “actively influencing” the technology selection process rather than have it dictated to them. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  13. Status Checklist • Is there a public simulator available to run? • 802.16 –Yes, NS2 • 802.11 – Yes, NIST Matlab • Has the simulator been recently executed to demonstrate it can produce useful results? • Yes, NIST Matlab for 802.11. 3 attendees. • Have any of the OpenSG uses cases been modeled? • No • Has anyone volunteered to run the model and report results? • In time for the March 31 status meeting? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  14. Status Checklist • Has anyone volunteered to run the model on the use cases and report results? • In time for the March 31 NIST status meeting? • In time for May 802 Interim meeting? • In time for June NIST deadline? • Has any 802 participant validated the model results against other simulators or lab test? • No • Are there any known corrections or extensions to the models needed to model uses cases? • 802.11 model is missing mesh • 802.11 model has been run using only 1 Mbps, BPSK in 2.4 GHz • Automatic rate scaling Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  15. Status Checklist • Is there a better way to promote uptake of model execution? • through advertising/cooperation with universities? • through outreach/cooperation with support organizations such as Zigbee, Wi-Fi, WiMAX • Develop one page description/advertising of PAP#2 modeling task • Dorothy & Mark will help Bruce do this • Are there any known clarifications to the uses cases required to provide useful results? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  16. Status Checklist (Additional Q & A) • ????? • xxx • ???? • yyy Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  17. Future Smart Grid ad hoc calls • Schedule plan so far has been Wednesdays at 2pm EST • Future call plans will be to continue this pattern – 1 per week – to July • Next call March 24 • Call topic suggestions • Review of one page task promotion • Detailed walk thru of first three use cases to determine if we need further clarification from Open SG (on March 31) • Reports on model results (from anyone) • Or note any additional commitments to run models Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  18. Smart Grid Use Cases As per OpenSG Interim Draft 2.0 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  19. Premises excluded (i.e. IHD and Cust. EMS) On Demand Meter Reading Command, Response and Errors MR-9 L:< 10s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 MR-8 L:< 5s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 MR-?? L:<5s; R:>99.5% MR-10 L:<5s; R:>99.5% Smart Meter CIS MDMS DAP Head End NMS MR-44 L:<10s; R:>98% MR-15 L:< 5s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 MR-21 L:< 5s; R:>99.5% MR-2 L:<5s; R:>99.5% MR-20 L:< 10s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 MR-18 L:< 10s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 MR-7 L:<5s; R:>99.5% MR-?? L:<?? R:>?? MR-16 L:< 5s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 MR-22 L:<5s; R:>99.5% MR-17 L:< 5s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 MR-27 L:< 10s; R:>99% PL: 50 MR-26 L:< 10s; R:>99% PL: 50 MR-14 L:<5s; R:>99% MR-28 L:<5s; R:>99% MR-19 L:< 10s; R:>99.5% PL:50 MR-43 L:<5s; R:>98% MR-40, 41, 42* L:< 10s; R:>98% PL: 50 MR-39 L:< 10s; R:>98% PL: 50 MR-25 L:<5s; R:>98% Communications Error Concatenated flow Response Read Application Error * Reporting for multiple devices Error flow Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  20. Bulk Meter Read Command and Response Message Flow MR-1 L: <1 hr; R:>99.5% PL: 25 MR-4 L: <1 hr; R:>99.5% PL: xMB Head End MDMS CIS MR-3 L: <1 hr; R:>99.5% PL: 25 MR-11 L: <1 hr; R:>99.5% PL: xMB Enter On-demand Meter Read Flow at Head End to DAP Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  21. Multiple Interval Meter Reading Command and Response Message Flows Note: No Error flows specified. Head End DAP MDMS Smart Meter MR-5 L:<5s; R:>99.5% PL: 25 MR-6 L:<5s; R:>99.5% PL: 25 MR-13 L:<5s; R:>99.5% PL: 200-2400 MR-11 L:<5s; R:>99% PL: 25 MR-24 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: xMB MR-11 L:<5s; R:>98% PL: 25 Concatenated flow Response Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  22. PHEV Price Rate Command Message Flow PHEV - 1 L:<35s; R:>95.5% PL: 255 Note: PHEV-1 here shows the calculated value (none is specified in the spreadsheet) PHV - 2 L:<10s; R:>99.5% PL: 255 ESI - Smart Meter LMS Head End DAP PHEV PHEV - 4 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: 255 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as receiving actor replace PHEV-20 with: PHEV - 21 L:<10s; R:>98% PL: 255 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as transmitting actor replace PHEV-45 with: PHEV - 34 L:< 5s; R:> 98% PL: 255 PHEV - 20 L:<10s; R:>98% PL: 255 PHEV - 45 L:<5s; R:>99% PL: 255 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  23. PHEV Send Price Rate Communications Failure Error Message Flow PHEV - 5 L:< 15m; R:>99.5% PL: 50 DMS NMS PHEV DSM Head End LMS ESI - Smart Meter DAP PHEV - 8 L:< 15m; R:>99.5% PL: 50 PHEV - 7 L:< 15m; R:>99.5% PL: 50 PHEV - 6 L:< 15m; R:>99.5% PL: 50 PHEV - 23 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: 50 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as transmitting actor replace PHEV-47 with: PHEV - 36 L:< 10s; R:> 99.5% PL: 50 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as transmitting actor replace PHEV-46 with: PHEV - 35 L:< 10s; R:> 99.5% PL: 50 PHEV - 47 L:<10s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 PHEV - 46 L:<10s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  24. PHEV Negotiate Power Charging Rate Command Message Flow PHEV – 3 L:<tbd; R:>tbd% PL: 100 PHV - 14 L:<10s; R:>99.5% PL: 100 PHEV – 58 L:<tbd; R:>tbd% PL: 100 ESI - Smart Meter LMS Head End DAP PHEV PHEV - 15 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: 100 PHEV - 27 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: 100 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as receiving actor replace PHEV-28 with: PHEV - 29 L:<10s; R:>98% PL: 100 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as transmitting actor replace PHEV-51 with: PHEV - 40 L:< 10s; R:> 98% PL: 100 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as transmitting actor replace PHEV-52 with: PHEV - 41 L:< 10s; R:> 99% PL: 100 PHEV - 28 L:<10s; R:>98% PL: 100 PHEV - 51 L:<10s; R:>98% PL: 100 PHEV - 52 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: 100 Forward Flow For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as transmitting actor replace PHEV-56 with: PHEV – 57 L:< 10s; R:> 98% PL: 100 PHEV - 56 L:<tbd; R:>tbd PL: 100 Reverse Flow Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  25. PHEV Negotiate Power Charge Rate Communications Failure Error Message Flow Notes: PHEV-10 and 12 are not duplicates. One reports LM-PHEV failures; and the other reports failures in the reverse direction. For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as transmitting actor replace PHEV-50 with: PHEV - 39 L:< 10s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 DMS ESI - Smart Meter LMS Head End DAP PHEV DSM NMS PHEV - 50 L:< 10s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 PHEV - 13 L:< 15m; R:>99.5% PL: 50 PHEV - 10 L:< 15m; R:>99.5% PL: 50 PHEV - 12 L:< 15m; R:>99.5% PL: 50 PHEV - 11 L:<15m; R:>99% PL: 50 PHEV - 26 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: 50 PHEV - 9 L:<15m; R:>98% PL: 50 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as transmitting actor replace PHEV-49 with: PHEV - 38 L:< 10s; R:> 99.5% PL: 50 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as transmitting actor replace PHEV-24 with: PHEV - 25 L:< 15m; R:> 98% PL: 50 LM-PHEV Comms Error PHEV - 49 L:<10s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 PHEV - 24 L:<15m; R:>98% PL: 50 PHEV –LM Comms Error Concatenated Flow For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as transmitting actor replace PHEV-48 with: PHEV – 37 L:< 15m; R:>99.5%; PL: 50 PHEV - 48 L:< 15m; R:>99.5% PL: 50 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  26. PHEV Power Charging Status Message Flow PHEV - 61 L:<40s; R:>95.5% PL: 100 Note: PHEV-61 Values are calculated. None specified in spreadsheet. PHV - 16 L:<10s; R:>99.5% PL: 100 ESI - Smart Meter LMS Head End DAP PHEV PHEV - 30 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: 100 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as transmitting actor replace PHEV-59 with: PHEV - 60 L:< 10s; R:> 99% PL: 100 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as receiving actor replace PHEV- 53 with: PHEV - 42 L:<10s; R:>98% PL: 100 PHEV - 53 L:<10s; R:>98% PL: 100 PHEV - 59 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: 100 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  27. PHEV VIN Information Request and Error Message Flow PHEV - 64 L:<10s; R:>98% PL: 50 PHV - 17 L:<10s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 ESI - Smart Meter MDMS Head End DAP PHEV PHEV - 31 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: 50 PHEV - 19 L:<10s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as transmitting actor replace PHEV-62 with: PHEV - 63 L:< 10s; R:> 99% PL: 50 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as receiving actor replace PHEV- 54 with: PHEV - 43 L:<10s; R:>98% PL: 50 PHEV - 32 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: 50 PHEV - 54 L:<10s; R:>98% PL: 50 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as receiving actor replace PHEV- 55 with: PHEV - 44 L:<10s; R:>98% PL: 50 PHEV - 62 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: 50 For an ESI –non-Smart Meter as receiving actor replace PHEV- 32 with: PHEV - 33 L:<10s; R:>99% PL: 50 PHEV - 18 L:<10s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 PHEV - 55 L:<10s; R:>98% PL: 50 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  28. Service Switch Command, Response and Errors SS-29a L:< 1m; R:>99% PL: 50 Head End DAP MDMS CIS Smart Meter NMS SS-17 L:< 5s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 SS-35 L:< 1m; R:> 98% PL: 25 SS-13 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 25 SS-3 L:<1m; R:>98% PL: 25 SS-15 L:< 5s; R:>99.5% PL:50 SS-8 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 25 SS-4 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 25 SS-16 L:< 5s; R:>99.5% PL:50 SS-12 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 25 SS-18 L:< 5s; R:>99.5% PL: 50 SS-11 L:< 5s; R:> 99% PL: 25 SS-28 L:< 30s; R:> 99% PL: 25 SS-30 L:< 30s; R:>99% PL: 50 SS-29 L:< 10s; R:>99% PL: 50 SS-14 L:< 5s; R:>99.5% PL:50 SS-27 L:< 5s; R:> 98% PL: 25 SS-34 L:< 5s; R:> 98% PL: 25 SS -36 L:< 5s; R:>98% PL: 50 SS-37 L:< 1m; R:>98% PL: 50 Communications Error Concatenated flow Ack Switch Operate Failure Error Error flow Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  29. Cancel Service Switch Command Head End DAP MDMS CIS Smart Meter SS-1 L:<1m; R:>98% PL: 25 SS-7 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 25 SS-2 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 25 SS-10 L:< 5s; R:> 99% PL: 25 SS-26 L:< 5s; R:> 98% PL: 25 Concatenated flow Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  30. Post Service Switch Operation Info Response Message Flow Head End DAP MDMS CIS Smart Meter SS-39 L:<1m; R:>98% PL: 100 SS-20 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 100 SS-19 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 100 SS-31 L:< 5s; R:> 99% PL: 100 SS-38 L:< 5s; R:> 98% PL: 100 Concatenated flow Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  31. Service Switch State Data Request and Response Head End DAP MDMS CIS LMS Smart Meter DSM SS-41 L:< 1m; R:> 98% PL: 100 SS-5 L:<1m; R:>98% PL: 25 SS-22 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 100 SS-23 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 100 SS-9 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 25 SS-6 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 25 SS-41 L:< 1m; R:> 98% PL: 100 SS-21 L:< 1m; R:> 99% PL: 25 SS-33 L:< 5s; R:> 99% PL: 100 SS-24 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 100 SS-25 L:< 5s; R:> 99.5% PL: 100 SS-32 L:< 5s; R:> 98% PL: 25 SS-40 L:< 5s; R:> 98% PL: 100 SS-41 L:< 1m; R:> 98% PL: 100 Concatenated flow Response Data Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  32. Background on NIST PAP#2 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  33. NIST PAP#2 • NIST is going to use (require) a model to demonstrate performance when operating in typical Smart Grid domains • Details are to be found at the URL on Slide 2 • Goal today is to develop response and action plan for June Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  34. NIST PAP#2 Goals/Events • February 4 at SFO Hilton – Joint with UCAIug OpenSG • Next meeting: March 31 at NIST Gaithersburg • At least partial analytic results based upon execution of models against high priority Use Cases by June 2010. • Neded: Clarification of how these results will be used. How are they coupled into SmartGrid Policy or Law/ What is the role of FERC? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  35. Outline Overview of NIST PAPs PAP#2 goals and sub tasks PAP#2 Task 6 plan IEEE approach to Task 6 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  36. Background • The NIST interoperability process identifies a number of high priority issues including the role of IP and the use of wireless communications: • April 2009 workshop http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/_SmartGridInterimRoadmap/InterimRoadmapWorkshop1 • May 2009 workshop http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/_SmartGridInterimRoadmap/InterimRoadmapWorkshop2 • EPRI report to NIST, June 2009 http://nist.gov/smartgrid/InterimSmartGridRoadmapNISTRestructure.pdf • NIST convenes an SDO workshop in August 2009 in order to develop plans to address priority issues http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/_SmartGridInterimRoadmap/PriorityActionPlans Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  37. The Current Priority Action Plans 0 Meter Upgradeability Standard 1 Role of IP in the Smart Grid 2 Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid 3 Common Price Communication Model 4 Common Scheduling Mechanism 5 Standard Meter Data Profiles 6 Common Semantic Model for Meter Data Tables 7 Electric Storage Interconnection Guidelines 8 CIM for Distribution Grid Management 9 Standard DR and DER Signals 10 Standard Energy Usage Information 11 Common Object Models for Electric Transportation 12 IEC 61850 Objects/DNP3 Mapping 13 Time Synchronization, IEC 61850 Objects/IEEE C37.118 Harmonization 14 Transmission and Distribution Power Systems Model Mapping 15 Harmonize Power Line Carrier Standards for Appliance Communications in the Home 16 Wind Plant Communications Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  38. Issue: Use of Wireless Communications in the Smart Grid • There are a number of advantages for using wireless communications including: • Untethered access to information • Mobility • Interoperability • Reduced cost and complexity • Availability of technologies with different characteristics to choose from • A number of challenges remain to be addressed: • How to choose among technologies with different characteristics? • How do we know which technology to use for what Smart Grid application? • Are there any implications for using a certain wireless technology in a certain environment? • Are there any deployment? Interference issues? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  39. Review of PAP#2 tasks • Develop Smart Grid application communication requirements and devise a taxonomy for applications with similar network requirements • Draft under development and available for review http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/app_matrix_pap.xls • Develop terminology and definitions • Compile and communicate use cases and develop requirements • is part of Task 1 • Create an attribute list and performance metrics for wireless standards • Draft developed and available for review http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/NIST_PAP2-_Wireless_Characteristics-IEEE802-v_02.xls 5. Create an inventory of wireless technologies and standards that are identified by each SDO • Feedback is expected by December 6, 2009. • Conduct an evaluation of the wireless technologies based on the application requirements • Perform a gap analysis and developing guidelines for the use of wireless technologies. 39 39 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  40. Approach to PAP#2 Task #6 Task 6 is to perform the mapping and conduct an evaluation of the wireless technologies based on the application communication requirements developed in Task 1 and the inventory of wireless technologies and their associated characteristics collected in Task 5. • During the February 4, 2010 PAP2 meeting that was held in San Francisco in conjunction with the OpenSG meetings, it was agreed that an evaluation methodology similar to the one presented by NIST and discussed by the group be used to perform Task 6. The group has also decided to issue a call for contribution of modeling tools and resources to assist in conducting the evaluation: • Indication of interest by February 19, 2010 to assist in conducting the evaluation. • Contribution of wireless technologies modeling tools by February 19, 2010. The tools contributed must be made available on the NIST twiki and available for use by all parties. • Contribution of measurement and experimental data for validating the performance evaluation results. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  41. Homework NIST Modeling Presentation • Detailed description of the modeling approach can be found at: • http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/PAP2modeling.ppt Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  42. Homework OpenSG Information Input from Open SG SG-NET received on February 22, 2010: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium_Release_2/ The reference architecture models locations are: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium_Release_2/SG-NET-diagram-r0.4e-with-Xflows.pdf • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium_Release_2/SG-NET-diagram-r0.4e.pdf The SG-Network functional requirements spreadsheet location is: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium_Release_2/SG-Net_TF_%20funct-volumteric-reqs_v2.xls The SG-Network system requirements specification locations is: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium_Release_2/SG%20Network%20System%20Requirements%20Specification%20v2.doc Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  43. Homework NIST mailing list • General access portal http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PriorityActionPlans • PAP Email Lists • Email lists have been establish for each PAP. These lists support self registration using the links below. They will replace the current set. Where possible, the SGIP Administrator will autoregister those presently on the list. If you have any question, please self register and this will ensure that you are on the desired list. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  44. Homework NIST Modeling • Tools provided by NIST and used in presentation PAP2modeling.ppt • nist_80211_mac.m: Matlab code for 80211_MAC_Model • nist_80211_MAC_readme.pdf: Readme file for using the 802.11 model Matlab code • SNRcdf.m: Matlab code for computing SNR probability at wireless receiver • SNRcdfCell.m: Matlab code for coverage analysis • nist_phy_model_readme.pdf: Readme file for using Matlab code for SNRcdf and SNRcdfCell • nist_channel_propagation_models.pdf: Channel propagation models Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  45. Meter Reporting Application: Mean Delay versus Offered Load 45 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  46. Future Smart Grid ad hoc calls • Schedule plan so far has been Wednesdays at 2pm EST • Feb 10 • Feb 17 • March 3 • March 24 • Future call plans will be to continue this pattern – 1 per week – to July Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  47. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  48. EPRI Whitepaper New • Whitepaper • http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/uploads/1/EPRI_1020432ConceptsAdvancementDER.pdf Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  49. Initial Questions from Ted Booth • As part of the PHY model, it’s not clear how NIST derived interference (I0 ) first introduced on slide 16.  In 802.11 access methods, usually, interference means signals from other BSS or other device's signal emission on the operating channel. However, it’s not clear what NIST assumes here.  Comments? • Regarding Transmit Power Control (TPC) (slide 17), Sony believes most of the current 802.11 devices do not apply dynamic transmit power control.  What’s your assessment here?  The NIST Models allow for either approach. Comments? • Looking again at TPC in the MAC Model, traditionally most 802.11 implementations try to use the best MCS to achieve higher throughput;  this will significantly impact results out of the Model.  How should the Model properly takes this into account? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  50. OpenSG • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/default.aspx Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

More Related